UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT  LOS  ANGELES 


LUTHER 


NIHIL  OBSTAT 

C.  SCHUT,  S.T.D. 

Censor  Deputatus. 

IMPRIMATUR 

EDM.  CAN.  SUEMONT, 

Vic.  Gen. 
Westmonasterii,  die  12  ^fart^^,  1914- 


LUTHER 


BY 

HARTMANN yGRISAR,   S.J. 

I'ROI'F.SSOR     AT     THF.     I'MVKKMT  Y     "F     INN-BRIO. 


AUTHORISED    TRANSLATION    FROM    THE    GERMAN    BY 

K.  M.  LAMOND 

EDITED      BY 

LUIGI   CAPPADELTA 


VOLUME  1 


B.  HERDER  BOOK   CO. 

17,  SOUTH    BROADWAY 
ST.  LOUIS,  MO. 


fnnted  in   Great    B>  itain 


STACK  ANNEX 


v.\ 


NOTE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION 

THE  text  of  the  present  edition  remains  unaltered 
save  for  the  incorporation  in  their  places  of  the 
"  emendations  and  additions  "  forwarded  by  the 
Author  too  late  for  insertion  in  the  body  of  the 
work  in  its  first  edition,  and  of  a  few  verbal 
corrections  for  which  the  English  Editor  owes  his 
thanks  to  various  reviewers. 


4799 


CONTENTS 

BIBLIOGRAPHY    .......          pages  xv-xxv 

INTRODUCTION    .......  pages  xxvii-xxxix 

CHAPTER  I.     COURSE  OF  STUDIES  AND  FIRST  YEARS 

IN   THE   MONASTERY          .          .     pages  3-GO 

1.  LUTHER'S  NOVITIATE  AND  EARLY  LIFE. 

The  new  postulant  at  the  gate  of  the  Erfurt  priory. 
Luther's  youth  ;  his  parents  ;  early  education  ;  stay  at 
Eisenach.  Enters  the  University  of  Erfurt.  Humanist 
friends.  His  novitiate.  Troubles  of  conscience  quieted  by 
Staupitz,  the  Vicar  of  the  Saxon  Congregation  of  Augus- 
tinian  Hermits.  Luther's  religious  profession  .  .  pages  3-12 

2.  FIDELITY  TO  His  NEW  CALLING  ;    His  TEMPTATIONS. 

Luther's  theological  course.  Lectures  and  lecturers ; 
Bible-study  ;  first  Mass.  His  father  on  his  vocation  ;  his 
father's  character.  Luther's  inward  troubles  ;  falls  into  a 
fit  in  choir  ;  Melanchthon  on  Luther's  attacks  of  fear.  St. 
Bernard  on  certainty  of  salvation.  Luther's  "  own  way  " 
with  his  difficulties.  He  is  sent  to  Wittenberg  and  back  to 
Erfurt.  Learned  occupations.  Luther's  assurance  manifest 
in  his  earliest  notes,  the  glosses  on  Peter  Lombard  ;  his 
glosses  on  Augustine  ;  his  fame  ;  his  virulent  temper  ;  his 
acquaintance  with  Hus.  Oldecop,  Dungersheim  and  Emser 
on  his  moral  character  in  early  days.  Humanistic  influences. 
Luther  is  chosen  by  the  Observantines  to  represent  them 
in  Rome  ........  pages  12-29 

3.  THE  JOURNEY  TO  ROME. 

Dissensions  within  the  Congregation.  Staupitz  opposed 
by  seven  Observantine  priories,  on  whose  behalf  Luther 
proceeds  to  Rome.  The  visit's  evil  effect  on  the  monk.  His 
opinion  of  the  Curia  and  the  moral  state  of  Rome.  An 
episode  at  the  Scala  Santa.  Luther's  belief  in  the  Primacy 
not  shaken  by  what  he  saw.  On  the  Holy  Mass  ;  his  petition 
to  be  secularised ;  perils  of  an  Italian  journey.  Luther  returns 
to  Wittenberg  and  forsakes  the  cause  of  the  Observantines. 

pages  29-38 

4.  THE  LITTLE  WORLD  or  WITTENBERG  AND  THE  GREAT  WORLD 

IN  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 

Luther  takes  the  doctorate  ;  his  first  lectures  ;  his  sur- 
roundings at  the  University  of  Wittenberg  ;  the  professors  ; 
Humanism  ;  schemes  for  reform  ;  Mutian,  Spalatin,  Reuch- 
lin,  the  "  Letters  of  Obscure  Men,"  Erasmus.  Luther's  road 
not  that  of  his  Humanist  friends.  Currents  of  thought  in 
the  age  of  discovery  and  awakened  learning  ;  decay  of 


viii  CONTENTS 

Church  life  ;  attempts  at  reform  ;  abasement  of  clergy  ; 
abuses  rampant  everywhere  ;  sad  state  of  the  Curia.  Signs 
of  the  coming  storm.  Luther's  way  prepared  by  the  course 
of  events.  A  curious  academic  dispute  .  .  .  pages  38-60 

CHAPTER  II.     HARBINGERS   OF   CHANGE          .    pages  61-103 

1.  SOURCES  OLD  AND  NEW. 

Peculiar  difficulties  of  the  problem.  Process  of  Luther's 
inward  estrangement  from  the  Church.  The  sources,  par- 
ticularly those  recently  brought  to  light.  The  marginal  notes 
in  Luther's  books  now  at  Zwickau.  His  letters  ;  earliest 
scriptural  notes,  i.e.  the  glosses  and  scholia  ;  lectures  on 
Scripture  ;  sermons,  1515-1516  ;  earliest  printed  works  ; 
his  Disputations.  Two  stages  of  his  development,  the  first  till 
1517,  the  second  till  the  end  of  1518  .  .  .  pages  61-67 

2.  LUTHER'S  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  PSALMS  (1513-15).    DISPUTE 

WITH  THE  OBSERVANTINES  AND  THE  "  SELF-RIGHTEOUS." 
His  passionate  opposition  to  the  Observantines  in  his 
Order,  and  to  "  righteousness  by  works,"  a  presage  of  the 
coming  change.  He  vents  his  ire  on  the  "  Little  Saints  "  of 
the  Order  in  his  discourse  at  Gotha.  On  righteousness  by 
grace  and  righteousness  by  works  ;  on  the  force  of  con- 
cupiscence and  original  sin.  No  essential  divergence  from 
the  Church's  belief  and  tradition  to  be  found  in  the  Com- 
mentary on  the  Psalms ;  reminiscences  of  Augustine  ; 
mystical  trend  ;  defects  of  Luther's  early  work  .  pages  67-78 

3.  EXCERPTS  FROM  THE  OLDEST  SERMONS.    His  ADVERSARIES. 

The  sermons  and  their  testimony  to  Luther's  scorn  for  the 
Observantines.  Echoes  of  the  controversy  proceeding 
within  the  Order.  The  Leitzkau  discourse  and  its  mysticism 

pages  78-84 

4.  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS  ON  YOUNG  LUTHER'S  RELATIONS  TO 

SCHOLASTICISM  AND  MYSTICISM. 

His  early  prejudice  against  Scholasticism,  its  psychological 
reason  ;  his  poor  opinion  of  Aristotle  and  the  Schoolmen. 
Martin  Pollich's  misgivings.  Luther's  leaning  to  mysticism, 
its  cause.  Esteem  for  Tauler  and  the  "  Theologia  Deutsch." 
His  letter  to  G.  Leiffer  *  .  .  .  .  pages  84-88 

5.  EXCERPTS  FROM  THE  EARLIEST  LETTERS. 

Signs  of  a  change  in  Luther's  letter  to  G.  Spenlein  ;  self- 
despair  and  trust  in  Christ.  To  Johann  Lang  on  a  work 
wrongly  ascribed  to  St.  Augustine  and  on  his  difficulties  with 
his  colleagues  at  Wittenberg.  To  Spalatin  on  Erasmus  ;  his 
dislike  of  everything  savouring  of  Pelagian  ism  .  pages  88-93 

6.  THE  THEOLOGICAL  GOAL. 

The  first  shaping  of  Luther's  heretical  views,  in  the  Com- 
mentary on  Romans.  Imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  ; 
uncertainty  of  justification ;  original  sin  remains  after 
baptism,  being  identical  with  concupiscence  ;  impossibility 
of  fulfilling  the  law  without  justification  ;  absence  of  all 
human  freedom  for  good  ;  sinful  character  of  natural  virtue  ; 
all  "  venial  "  sins  really  mortal ;  no  such  thing  as  merit ; 
predestination  .......  pages  93-103 


CONTENTS  ix 

CHAPTER   III.     THE   STARTING-POINT     .          .-    pages  104-129 

1.  FORMER  INACCURATE  VIEWS. 

The  starting-point  not  simply  the  desire  to  reform  the 
Church  ;  nor  mere  antipathy  to  the  Dominicans.  Hus's 
influence  merely  secondary.  Luther's  own  account  of  his 
search  for  a  "  merciful  God  "  not  to  be  trusted  any  more  than 
his  later  descriptions  of  his  life  as  a  monk  .  .  pages  104-110 

2.  WHETHER  EVIL  CONCUPISCENCE  is  IRRESISTIBLE  ? 

Luther's  belief  in  its  irresistibility  not  to  be  alleged  as  a 
proof  of  his  moral  perversity.  Traces  of  the  belief  early 
noticeable  in  him  ;  he  demands  that  people  should  neverthe- 
less strive  against  concupiscence  with  the  weapons  of  the 
spirit ;  concupiscence  ineradicable,  identical  with  original 
sin,  and  actually  sinful.  Luther  not  a  determinist  from  the 
beginning.  His  pseudo-mysticism  scarcely  reconcilable 
with  his  supposed  moral  perversity  .  .  .  pages  110-117 

3.  THE  REAL  STARTING-POINT  AND  THE  CO-OPERATING  FACTORS. 

Luther's  new  opinions  grounded  on  his  antipathy  to  good 
works  ;  hence  his  belief  in  the  incapacity  of  man  for  good. 
Other  factors  ;  his  character,  his  self-confidence  and  com- 
bativeness  ;  his  anger  with  the  formalism  prevalent  in  his  day  ; 
his  fear  of  eternal  reprobation  ;  his  inadequate  knowledge  of 
the  real  doctrine  of  the  Church ;  his  hasty  promotion  pages  1 1 7-129 
CHAPTER  IV.  "  I  AM  OF  OCCAM'S  PARTY  "  pages  130-165 

1.  A  CLOSER  EXAMINATION  OF  LUTHER'S  THEOLOGICAL  TRAINING. 

Not  trained  in  the  best  school  of  Scholasticism.  His 
Occamist  education.  Positive  and  negative  influence  of 
Occamism  on  Luther  .....  pages  130-133 

2.  NEGATIVE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  OCCAMIST  SCHOOL  ON  LUTHER. 

Luther's  criticism  of  Occam  ;  he  abandons  certain  views 
of  the  Occamists  and  flies  to  the  opposite  extreme  ;  offended 
by  their  neglect  of  Scripture  and  by  the  subtlety  of  their 
philosophy ;  hence  he  comes  to  oppose  Aristotelianism  and 
the  Scholastics  generally.  Occamistic  exaggeration  of  man's 
powers  leads  him  ex  opposite  to  underrate  the  same.  Negative 
influence  of  Occamism  on  Luther's  teaching  regarding 
original  sin.  Gabriel  Biel  on  original  sin  ;  the  keeping  of  the 
commandments  ;  the  love  of  God  ;  whether  man  can  merit 
grace  ;  Gregory  of  Rimini ;  the  principle  :  "  Facienti  quod 
est  in  se  Deus  non  denegat  gratiam  "  ;  the  deficiencies  of  the 
Occamists  laid  at  the  door  of  Scholasticism.  Three  answers 
to  the  question  how  Luther  failed  to  perceive  that  he  was  for- 
saking the  Church's  doctrine.  His  denial  of  natural  righteous- 
ness, and  his  ignorance  of  the  true  scholastic  teaching  on  the 
point ;  misunderstands  his  own  masters.  His  interpretation 
of  the  words,  "  Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing."  His  re- 
jection of  actual  grace  .  .  .  .  pages  133-154 

3.  POSITIVE  INFLUENCE  OF  OCCAMISM. 

Occamist  "  acceptation  "  and  Lutheran  "  imputation." 
Luther  assails  the  habit  of  supernatural  grace  and  replaces  the 
doctrine  of  an  essential  order  of  things  by  the  arbitrary 
pactum  Dei.  Divorce  of  faith  and  reason.  Feeling  and 
religious  experience.  Predestination ;  transubstantiation. 
Luther's  anti-Thomism,  his  combativeness  and  loquacity. 
Other  alleged  influences,  viz.  Gallicanism,  ultra-realism, 
Wiclifism,  and  Neo-Platonism  ....  pages  155—165 


x  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  V.     THE  ROCKS  OF  FALSE  MYSTICISM 

pages  166-183 

1.  TATTLER  AND  LTJTHER. 

Tauler's  orthodox  doctrine  distorted  by  Luther  to  serve  his 
purpose.  Passivity  in  the  hands  of  God  explained  as  the 
absence  of  all  effort.  Luther's  application  of  Tauler's 
teaching  to  his  own  states  of  anxiety.  His  knowledge  of 
Tauler ;  annotations  to  Tauler's  sermons ;  the  German 
mystics  ;  a  "  return  to  nothingness  "  the  supreme  aim  of  the 
Christian  .  ......  pages  166-174 

2.  EFFECT  OF  MYSTICISM  ON  LUTHER. 

Advantages  of  its  study  outweighed  by  disadvantage. 
Why  Luther  failed  to  become  a  true  mystic.  Specimens  of  his 
mystic  utterances.  His  edition  of  the  "  Theologia  Deutsch  "  ; 
attitude  to  pseudo-Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  St.  Bernard  and 
Gerson  ;  an  excerpt  from  his  "  Operationea  in  psalmos  " 

pages  175-183 


CHAPTER  VI.     THE  CHANGE  OF  1515  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF 

THE   COMMENTARY   ON   ROMANS   (1515-16)  pages  184-261 

1.  THE  NEW  PUBLICATIONS. 

Denifle  the  first  to  utilise  the  Commentary  on  Romans. 
Ficker's  recent  edition  of  the  original.    General  remarks  on  the 
Commentary.    Aim  of  St.  Paul  according  to  Luther  pages  184—187 

2.  GLOOMY  VIEWS  REGARDING  GOD  AND  PREDESTINATION. 

Luther's  "  more  profound  theology  "  and  unconditional 
predestination  to  hell ;  God's  will  that  the  wicked  be  damned. 
God  to  be  approached  in  fear  and  despair,  not  with  works 
and  in  the  hope  of  reward.  The  mystic  on  resignation  to  hell. 
Man's  will  and  his  salvation  entirely  in  God's  hands.  Ob- 
jections :  Is  it  not  God's  will  that  all  be  saved  ?  Why  impose 
commandments  which  the  will  is  not  free  to  perform  ?  Un- 
perceived  inconsistencies  ....  pages  187—197 

3.  THE  FIGHT  AGAINST  "HOLINESS-BY-WORKS"  AND  THE  OB- 

SERVANTINES  IN  THE  COMMENTARY  ON  ROMANS. 

Luther's  aversion  to  works  and  observances.  His  rude 
description  of  the  "  Observants  "  and  "  Justiciaries."  The 
very  word  "  righteousness  "  a  cause  of  vexation  pages  197-202 

4.  ATTACK  ON  PREDISPOSITION  TO  GOOD  AND  ON  FREE  WILL. 

Human  nature  entirely  spoiled  by  original  sin.  Being 
unable  to  fulfil  the  command  "Non  concupisces,"  we  are  ever 
sinning  mortally.  Uncertainty  of  salvation  ;  the  will  not 
free  for  good.  Interpretation  of  Rom.  viii.  2  f.  Against 
Scholasticism.  In  penance  and  confession  no  removal 
(ablatio)  of  sin.  .  .  .  .  .  .  pages  202-209 

5.  LUTHER  RUDELY  SETS  ASIDE  THE  OLDER  DOCTRINE  OF  VIRTUE 

AND    SlN. 

The  habit  of  sanctifying  grace  ;  "  cursed  be  the  word 
'  Jormatum  charitate  '  "  ;  sin  coexistent  with  grace  in  the 
good  man  ;  Augustine  on  concupiscence.  "  Nothing  is  of  its 
own  nature  good  or  bad  "  ;  the  Occamist  acceptation-theory 
against  the  "  Aristotelian "  definition  of  virtue  and  the 
scholastic  doctrine  that  virtues  and  vices  are  qualities  of  the 
soul pages  209-213 


CONTENTS  xi 

6.  PREPARATION  FOR  JUSTIFICATION. 

Christ's  grace  does  all,  and  yet  man  disposes  himself  for 
justification.  Man's  self-culture.  Inconsistencies  explained 
by  reminiscences  of  his  early  Catholic  training  .  pages  213—214 

7.  APPROPRIATION    OF    THE    RIGHTEOUSNESS    OF    CHRIST     BY 

HUMILITY — NEITHER  "FAITH  ONLY"  NOR  ASSURANCE  OF 
SALVATION. 

Imputation  applied  to  justification.  Another's  righteous- 
ness is  imputed  to  us  and  becomes  ours  ;  sin  remains,  but  is 
no  longer  accounted  ;  our  inability  to  know  whether  Christ's 
righteousness  has  been  imputed  to  us.  Advantage  of  fear. 
"  He  who  renounces  his  own  self  and  willingly  faces  death 
and  damnation  "  is  truly  humble,  and  in  such  humility  is 
safety.  Faith  not  yet  substituted  for  humility.  Passivity 
again  emphasised  ......  pages  214-222 

8.  SUBJECTIVISM  AND  CHURCH  AUTHORITY.    STORM  AND  STRESS. 

The  back  place  already  taken  in  Luther's  mind  by  the 
Church  and  her  teaching-office  ;  his  preference  for  a  theology 
of  his  own  invention.  Our  duty  of  not  judging  Luther  by  the 
later  Tridentine  decrees.  His  Catholic  sentiments  on  the 
hierarchy  ;  denounces  abuses  whilst  respecting  the  rights  of 
the  Roman  Church ;  desiderates  a  reduction  of  festivals ;  re- 
proves Bishops  for  insisting  on  their  rights  instead  of 
rejoicing  to  see  them  infringed.  On  listening  to  the  inner 
voice .  pages  223-230 

9.  THE  MYSTIC  IN  THE  COMMENTARY  ON  ROMANS. 

Luther's  misapprehension  of  Tauler  and  other  mystics 
clearly  proved  in  the  Commentary.  Quietism.  The  "  Spark 
in  the  Soul."  The  "  Theology  of  the  Cross."  The  "  Night 
of  the  Soul."  Readiness  for  hell  the  joy  of  the  truly  wise  ; 
Christ  and  Paul  the  Apostle,  two  instances  of  such  readiness 

pages  230-240 

10.  THE  COMMENTARY  ON  ROMANS  AS  A  WORK  OF  RELIGION  AND 

LEARNING. 

Its  witness  to  the  unsettled  state  of  the  writer's  mind. 
Texts  and  commentaries  utilised ;  neglect  of  Aquinas's 
Commentary  ;  the  author's  style  ;  obscenity  and  paradox  ; 
a  tilt  at  the  philosophers  ;  the  character  of  the  work  rather 
spoilt  by  unnecessary  polemics.  Appeal  to  Augustine. 
Misuse  of  theological  terms.  "  The  word  of  God  is  every 
word  which  proceeds  from  the  mouth  of  a  good  man."  Con- 
tradiction a  criterion  of  truth.  All  the  prophets  against 
observances.  Unconscious  self-contradiction  on  the  subject 
of  freedom.  Whether  any  progress  is  apparent  hi  the  course 
of  the  Commentary,  Comparison  of  Luther's  public  utter- 
ances with  those  in  the  Commentary.  Some  excerpts  from 
the  Commentary  on  Hebrews  .  .  .  pages  241-261 


xii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  VII.  SOME  PARTICULARS  WITH  REGARD 
TO  THE  OUTWARD  CIRCUMSTANCES  AND 
INWARD  LIFE  OF  LUTHER  AT  THE  TIME  OF 
THE  CRISIS  .  ....  pages  262-302 

1.  LUTHER  AS  SUPERIOR  OF  ELEVEN  AUGUSTINIAN  HOUSES. 

His  election  as  Rural  Vicar,  1516  ;  his  discourse  on  the 
Little  Saints  delivered  at  the  Chapter ;  influence  of  his 
administration ;  extracts  from  his  correspondence ;  his 
quick  despatch  of  business  ....  pages  262-268 

2.  THE  MONK  OF  LIBERAL  VIEWS  AND  INDEPENDENT  ACTION. 

His  ideal  of  humility.  On  vows.  Prejudice  against  observ- 
ances. Blames  formalism  prevalent  in  the  Church  generally 
and  in  the  monasteries.  Paltz  and  Tauler  on  this  subject. 
Overwork  leads  Luther  to  neglect  his  spiritual  duties  ;  Mass 
and  Divine  Office  ;  his  final  abandonment  of  the  Breviary. 
His  outward  appearance  ;  his  quarrelsomeness  .  pages  268-280 

3.  LUTHER'S    ULTRA-SPIRITUALISM   AND    CALLS    FOR    REFORM. 

Is  SELF-IMPROVEMENT  POSSIBLE  ?    PENANCE. 

His  pessimism  ;  the  whole  world  sunk  in  corruption. 
Opinion  of  theologians.  Justifiable  criticism.  On  the 
clergy  ;  proposes  placing  the  administration  of  all  temporali- 
ties in  the  hands  of  the  Princes.  On  Indulgences.  His 
familiarity  with  the  Elector  of  Saxony.  On  the  dreadful 
state  of  Rome.  The  prevalence  of  Pelagianism  ;  three  deadly 
vices  ;  on  his  own  temptations  ;  how  people  fall  and  rise  again  ; 
on  diabolical  terrors  ;  on  making  the  best  of  things  and 
reconciling  ourselves  to  remaining  in  sin  ;  his  inability  to 
understand  the  nature  of  contrition  ;  denial  that  perfect 
contrition  exists  ;  his  mysticism  averse  to  the  motive  of 
fear  or  of  heavenly  recompense  ;  misrepresentation  of  the 
Church's  doctrine  concerning  attrition.  Ascribes  his  view  of 
penance  to  Staupitz  ;  the  part  of  Staupitz  in  the  downfall 
of  the  Congregation.  Mohler  and  Neander  on  Luther's 
resemblance  to  Marcion  the  Gnostic.  Paradoxical  character 
of  the  monk  .  pages  280-302 

CHAPTER  VIII.  THE  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  EPISTLE 
TO  THE  GALATIANS.  FIRST  DISPUTATIONS 
AND  FIRST  TRIUMPHS  .  .  .  .  pages  303-326 

1.  "  THE  COMMENCEMENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL  BUSINESS."    EXPOSI- 

TION OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS  (1516-17). 

Melanchthon  and  Mathesius  on  the  birth  of  the  "  Evangel." 
Luther's  first  disciples,  Carlstadt,  Amsdorf,  etc.  His  appeals 
to  St.  Augustine.  The  Commentary  on  Oalatians  begins  in 
1516.  Luther's  progress  in  the  light  of  this  and  the  longer 
Commentary  published  later  ....  pages  303-310 

2.  DISPUTATIONS  ON  MAN'S  POWERS  AND  AGAINST  SCHOLASTICISM 

(1516-17). 

Bernhardi's  Disputation  in  1516  presided  over  by  Luther  ; 
"  Man  sins  in  spite  of  every  effort."  Luther  to  Lang  on  the 
scandal  of  the  "  Gabrielists."  Gimther's  Disputation  in  151 7 ; 
specimens  of  the  theses  defended;  Luther  circulates  them 
widely pages  310-314 


CONTENTS  xiii 

3.  DISPUTATION  AT  HEIDELBERG  ox  FAITH  AND  GRACE.    OTHER 

PUBLIC  UTTERANCES. 

The  Heidelberg  Chapter.  Leonard  Beyer  defends  Luther's 
theses  in  the  presence  of  Bucer  and  other  future  adherents  of 
the  cause.  The  theses  and  their  demonstration  ;  Grace  not 
to  be  obtained  by  works  ;  the  motive  of  fear  ;  free  will  a  mere 
name.  A  Wittenberg  Disputation  in  1518,  "  For  the  Quieting 
of  Anxious  Consciences."  The  three  great  Disputations 
described  by  Luther  as  "  Initium  negocii  evangelici."  Luther 
to  Trutfetter  on  his  amis  ....  pages  315-321 

4.  ATTITUDE  TO  THE  CHURCH. 

Luther  continues  to  acknowledge  the  doctrinal  office  of  the 
Church.  The  principle  of  private  interpretation  of  Scripture 
not  yet  enunciated.  Explanation  of  Luther's  inconsistency 
in  conduct ;  on  obedience  to  the  Church  ;  traces  all  heresies 
back  to  pride  ;  his  correct  description  of  Indulgences  in 
1516,  his  regret  at  their  abuse  ....  pages  321-326 


CHAPTER  IX.     THE     INDULGENCE-THESES     OF     1517 

AND    THEIR    AFTER-EFFECTS        .          .     pages  327-373 

1.  TETZEL'S  PREACHING  OF  THE  INDULGENCE  ;  THE  95  THESES. 

The  St.  Peter's  Indulgence  and  its  preaching  ;  Luther's 
information  regarding  it ;  his  sermon  before  the  Elector. 
The  95  theses  nailed  to  the  door  of  the  Castle  Church  ;  their 
contents ;  the  excitement  caused ;  Augustinians  refrain 
from  any  measure  against  the  author ;  the  Heidelberg 
Chapter  ;  the  "  Resolutions  "  ;  Dominicans  take  up  the 
challenge.  Fables  regarding  Luther  and  Tetzel  ;  Tetzel's 
private  life  ;  charges  brought  against  him  by  Luther  and 
Miltitz  ;  the  real  Tetzel ;  Luther's  statement  that  he  did 
not  know  "  what  an  Indulgence  was."  Luther's  letter  to 
Tetzel  on  his  death-bed  .....  pages  327-347 

2.  THE  COLLECTION  FOR  ST.  PETER'S  IN  HISTORY  AND  LEGEND. 

The  Indulgence  granted  on  behalf  of  the  building  fund ; 
new  sources  of  information  ;  Albert  of  Brandenburg  obtains 
the  See  of  Mayence  ;  his  payments  to  Rome  ;  the  Indulgence 
granted  him  for  his  indemnification  ;  arrangements  made  for 
its  preaching  ;  the  pecuniary  result  a  failure  .  pages  347-355 

3.  THE  TRIAL  AT  AUGSBURG  (1518). 

The  summons.  Luther  before  Cardinal  Cajetan  at  Augs- 
burg ;  Letters  written  from  Augsburg ;  refuses  to  recant ; 
his  flight ;  his  appeal  to  a  General  Council.  Popular  works  on 
the  Penitential  Psalms,  the  Our  Father,  and  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments .......  pages  355-362 

4.  THE  DISPUTATION  AT  LEIPZIG,  1519.    MILTITZ.   QUESTIONABLE 

REPORTS. 

Circumstances  of  the  Disputation.  Luther's  dissatisfaction 
with  the  result.  Unfortunate  attempts  of  Miltitz  to  smooth 
things  down.  Luther's  justification  of  his  polemics.  Stories 
of  his  doings  and  sayings  at  Dresden  ;  his  sermon  before  the 
Court ;  Eraser's  reports  of  certain  utterances  .  pages  362-373 


xiv  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  X.  LUTHER'S  PROGRESS  IN  THE  NEW 

TEACHING  .  .  .     pages  374-404 

1.  THE  SECOND  STAGE  OF  His  DEVELOPMENT  :  ASSURANCE  OF 

SALVATION. 

In  the  first  stage  assurance  of  salvation  through  faith 
alone  was  yet  unknown  to  him.  The  Catholic  doctrine  on 
this  subject.  How  Luther  reached  his  doctrine  by  the  path 
of  despair;  the  several  steps  of  his  progress  from  1516 
onwards  ;  the  Resolutions  ;  the  "  pangs  of  Hell  "  ;  the 
interview  with  Cajetan  ;  first  clear  trace  of  the  doctrine  in  his 
works  written  in  1519  .....  pages  374-388 

2.  THE  DISCOVERY  IN  THE  MONASTERY  TOWER,  1518-19. 

The  information  contained  in  Luther's  later  Prccfatio  to 
be  trusted  in  the  main ;  other  testimonies  ;  his  state  at  the 
time  one  of  great  anxiety  ;  his  terror  of  God's  justice.  The 
Gate  of  Paradise  suddenly  opened  by  the  text  :  "  The  just 
man  liveth  by  faith  " ;  where  this  revelation  was  vouchsafed : 
In  the  "  cloaca  "  on  the  tower  ;  the  revelation  referred  by 
Luther  to  the  Holy  Ghost ;  its  importance  and  connection 
with  Luther's  mysticism  ....  pages  388-400 

3.  LEGENDS.     STORM-SIGNALS. 

Luther's  faulty  recollection  in  later  life  responsible  for 
the  rise  of  legends  regarding  his  discovery.  His  statement 
that  he  was  the  first  to  interpret  Romans  i.  17  as  speaking 
of  the  justice  by  which  God  makes  us  just.  His  "  discovery  " 
confirms  him  in  his  attitude  towards  Rome  ;  the  Pope  a  more 
dangerous  foe  of  the  German  nation  than  the  Turk.  The 
legend  that  the  German  knights  and  Humanists  were 
responsible  for  Luther's  opposition  to  Rome  .  pages  400-404 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


NOTE. — The  following  is  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  books, 
etc.,  referred  to  in  an  abbreviated  form  in  the  course  of  our  work, 
the  title  under  which  they  are  quoted  in  each  case  figuring  first. 

For  the  Bibliography  of  Luther  generally,  we  may  refer  to  the 
following  :  E.  G.  Vogel,  "  Bibliographia  Bibliographica  Lutheri," 
Halle,  1851  ;  I.  A.  Fabricius,  "  Centifolium  Lutheranum,"  2 
parts,  Hamburg,  1728-1730  ;  Win.  Maurenbrecher,  "  Studien  und 
Skizzen,"  Leipzig,  1874,  p.  205  ff.  (a  good  list  of  the  studies  on 
Luther  and  his  work).  The  articles  on  Luther  in  the  "  Deutsche 
Biographic,"  in  the  Catholic  "  Kirchenlexikon "  (2nd  ed.), 
and  the  Protestant  "  Realenzyklopadie  fiir  Theologie,"  etc., 
also  provide  more  or  less  detailed  bibliographies.  So  also 
do  W.  Moller,  "  Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte,"  vol.  3,  ed. 
by  Kawerau  (3rd  ed.,  particularly  p.  4  ff.) ;  Hergenrother,  "  Lehr- 
buch der  Kirchengeschichte,"  vol.  3,  3rd  ed.,  by  J.  P.  Kirsch 
(particularly  p.  4  ff.)  ;  Janssen-Pastor,  "  Geschichte  des 
deutschen  Volkes,"  etc.  (in  the  lists  at  the  commencement  of 
each  vol.,  particularly  vols.  ii.  and  iii.).  The  bibliographical  data 
added  by  various  writers  in  the  prefaces  to  the  various  works  of 
Luther  in  the  new  Weimar  complete  edition  are  not  only  copious 
but  also  often  quite  reliable,  for  instance,  those  on  the  German 
Bible. 

"  Analecta  Lutherana,  Brief e  und  Aktenstiicke  zur  Geschichte 
Luthers,  Zugleich  ein  Supplement  zu  den  bisherigen 
Sammlungen  seines  Brief wechsels,"  ed.  by  Th.  Kolde, 
Gotha,  1883. 

"  Analecta  Lutherana  et  Melanchthoniana,"  see  Mathesiua, 
"  Aufzeichnungen." 

"  Archiv  fiir  Reformationsgeschichte.  Texte  und  Untersuch- 
ungen.  In  Verbindung  mit  dem  Verein  fiir  Reformations- 
geschichte," ed.  W.  Friedensburg.  Berlin,  later  Leipzig. 
1903-1904  ff. 

Balan,  P.,  "  Monumenta  reformationis  Lutherans*  ex  tabulariis 
S.  Sedis  secretis,  1521-1525,"  Ratisbonae,  1883,  1884.- 

Barge,  H.,  "  Andreas  Bodenstein  von  Karlstadt,"  2  vols., 
Leipzig,  1905. 

Beatus  Rhenanus,  see  Correspondence. 


xvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Berger,  A.,  "  Martin  Luther  in  kulturgeschichtlicher  Darstellung." 
2  vols.,  Berlin,  1895-1898. 

Bezold,  F.  von,  "  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Reformation," 
Berlin,  1890. 

"  Bibliothek  des  Kgl.  Preussischen  Historischen  Instituts  in 
Rom,"  Rome,  1905  ff. 

Blaurer,  see  Correspondence. 

Bohmer,  H.,  "  Luther  im  Lichte  der  neueren  Forschung"  (from 
"Natur  und  Geisteswelt,"  No.  113),  Leipzig,  1906,  2nd  ed., 
1910. 

Brandenburg,  E.,  "  Luthers  Anschauung  von  Staat  und  Gesell- 
schaft  "  (Schriften  des  Vereins  fur  Reformationsgeschichte), 
Hft.  70,  Halle,  1901. 

Braun,  W.,  "  Die  Bedeutung  der  Concupiscenz  in  Luthers  Leben 
und  Lehre,"  Berlin,  1908. 

"  Briefe,"  see  Letters. 

"  Brief wechsel,"  see  Correspondence. 

Brieger,  Th.,  "  Aleander  und  Luther.  Die  vervollstandigten 
Aleander-Depeschen  nebst  Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Worm- 
ser  Reichstag,"  I,  Gotha,  1884. 

Burkhardt,  C.  A.,  "  Geschichte  der  sachsischen  Kirchen-  und 
Schulvisitationen  von  1524-1545,"  Leipzig,  1879. 

Calvini,  I.,  "  Opera  quse  supersunt  omnia,  ediderunt  G.  Braun, 
E.  Cunitz,  E.  Reuss,"  59  vol.  (29-87  in  the  "  Corpus 
Reformatorum"),  Brunsvigae,  1863-1900. 

Cardauns,  L.,  "  Zur  Geschichte  der  kirchlichen  Unions-  und 
Reformbestrebungen  von  1538-1542  "  ("  Bibliothek  des 
Kgl.  Preuss.  Historischen  Instituts  in  Rom,"  vol.  5),  Rome, 
1910. 

—  see  "  Nuntiaturberichte." 

Cochlaeus,  I.,  "  Comnientaria  de  actis  et  scriptis  M.  Lutheri  .  .  . 
ab  a.  1517  usque  ad  a.  1537  conscripta,"  Moguntise,  1549. 

("  Colloquia,"  ed.  Bindseil),  Bindseil,  H.  E.,  "  D.  Martini  Lutheri 
Colloquia,  Meditationes,  Consolationes,  ludicia,  Sententiae, 
Narrationes,  Responsa,  Facetiae  e  codice  ms.  Bibliothecaa 
Orphanotrophei  Halensis  cum  perpetua  collatione  editionis 
Rebenstockianse  edita  et  prolegomenis  indicibusque  in- 
structa,"  3  voll.,  Lemgoviaa  et  Detmoldae,  1863-1866. 

("  Commentarius  in  Epist.  ad  Galat."),  "M.  Lutheri  Corn- 
men  tarius  in  Epistolam  ad  Galatas  "  ed.  I.  A.  Irmischer, 
3  voll.,  Erlangae,  1843  sq. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xvii 

(Cordatus,  "Tagebuch"),  Wrampelmeyer,  H.,  "  Tagebuch  iiber 
Dr.  Martin  Luther,  gefiihrt  von  Dr.  Conrad  Cordatus,  1537," 
1st  ed.,  Halle,  1885. 

"  Corpus  Reformatorum,"  ed.  Bretschneider,  Halis  Sexonise, 
1834,  sqq.  voll.  1-28,  "  Melanchthonis  opera  "  ;  voll.  29-87, 
"  Calvini  opera  "  ;  voll.  88-89,  "  Zwinglii  opera." 

Correspondence  :  "  Dr.  Martin  Luthers  Brief wechsel,"  edited 
with  annotations  by  L.  Enders,  11  vols.,  Frankfurt  a/M.,  also 
Calw  and  Stuttgart,  1884-1907,  12  vols.,  ed.  G.  Kawerau, 
Leipzig,  1910  ;  see  also  Letters. 

—  "  Brief  wechsel  Luthers,  mit  vielen  unbekannten  Brief  en  und 
unter  Beriicksichtigung  der  De  Wetteschen  Ausgabe,"  ed. 
C.  A.  Burkhardt,  Leipzig,  1866. 

—  "  Briefwechsel  des  Beatus  Rhenanus,"  etc.,  ed.  A.  Horawitz 

and  K.  Hartfelder,  Leipzig,  1886. 

—  "  Briefwechsel  der  Briider  Ambrosius  und  Thomas  Blaurer, 

1509-1548,"  ed.  Tr.  Schiess,  1  vol.,  Freiburg  i /Breisgau,  1908. 

—  "  Briefwechsel  des  Justus  Jonas,"  etc.,  ed.  G.  Kawerau,  2  vols., 

Halle,  1884. 

—  "  Briefwechsel    Landgraf    Philipps    des    Grossmiitigen    von 

Hessen  mit  Bucer,"  ed.  by   M.  Lenz    ("  Publikationen  aus 
dem  Kgl.  Preuss.  Staatsarchiv,"),  3  vols.,  Leipzig,  1880-1891. 


Denifle,  H.,  O.P.,  "  Luther  und  Luthertum  in  der  ersten  Ent- 
wickelung  quellenmassig  dargestellt,"  1  vol.,  Mayence,  1904  ; 
2nded.,  1st  part,^1904  ;  2nd  part,  ed.  A.  M.  Weiss,  O.P.,  1906. 
Quellenbelege  zu  I2,  1-2,  "Die  Abendlandische  Schriftaus- 
legung  bis  Luther  viber  lustitia  Dei  (Rom.  i.  17)  und  lusti- 
ficatio.  Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  der  Exegese,  der  Literatur 
und  des  Dogmas  im  Mittelalter,"  1905,  2nd  vol.  of  the  main 
work,  ed.  A.  M.  Weiss,  O.P.,  1909. 

—  "  Luther  in  rationalistischer  und  christlieher  Beleuchtung, 
Prinzipielle  Auseinandersetzung  mit  A.  Harnack  und 
R.  Seeberg,"  Mayence,  1904. 

"  Deutsch-evangelische  Blatter.  Zeitschrift  fiir  den  gesamten 
Bereich  des  cleutschen  Protestantismus,"  Halle,  1891,  sq. 

("  Disputationen,"  ed.  Drews),  Drews,  P.,  "  Disputationen  Dr. 
Martin  Luthers,  in  den  Jahren,  1535-1545  an  der  Universitat 
Wittenberg  gehalten,"  1st  ed.,  Gottingen,  1895. 

("  Disputationen,"  ed.  Stange),  Stange,  C.,  "  Die  altesten 
ethischen  Disputationen  Dr.  Martin  Luthers "  ("  Quel- 
lenschriften  zur  Geschichte  des  Protestantismus,"  1),  Leipzig, 
1904. 


xviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Dollinger,  J.  I.  von,  "  Luther,- eine  Skizze,"  Freiburg  i/B.,  1890 
(also  in  Wetzer  and  Welte's  Kirchenlexikon,  1st  and  2nd 
ed.,  Art.  "  Luther  "). 

—  "  Die  Reformation,  ihre  innere  Entwickelung  und  ihre  Wirk- 
ungen  im  Umfange  des  lutherischen  Bekenntnisses,"  3  vols., 
Ratisbon,  1846-1848  (I2,  1851). 


Ehses  St.,  "  Geschichte  der  Packschen  Handel.  Ein  Beitrag  zur 
Geschichte  der  deutschen  Reformation,"  Freiburg  i/B.,  1881. 

Ellinger,  G.,  "  Philipp  Melanchthon.  Ein  Lebensbild,"  Berlin, 
1902. 

"  Erasmi  D.  Roterodami  Opera  omnia  emendatiora  et  auctiora," 
ed.  Clericus,  10  torn.,  Lugd.  Batavorum,  1702-1706. 

"  Erlauterungen  und  Erganzungen  zu  Janssens  Geschichte  des 
deutschen  Volkes,"  ed.  L.  von  Pastor,  Freiburg  i/B.,  1898,  sq. 

Evers,  G.,  "  Martin  Luther.  Lebens-  und  Charakterbild,  von  ihm 
selbst  gezeichnet  in  seinen  eigenen  Schriften  und  Korres- 
pondenzen,"  Hft.  1-14,  Mayence,  1883-1894. 

Falk,  F.,  "Die  Bibel  am  Ausgang  des  Mittelalters,"  Mayence, 
1905. 

—  "  Die  Ehe  am  Ausgang  des  Mittelalters  "  ("  Erlauterungen  und 
Erganzungen  zu  Janssens  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Volkes," 
Vol.  6,  Hft.  4),  Freiburg  i/B.,  1908. 

"  Flugschriften  aus  den  ersten  Jahren  der  Reformation,"  ed. 
O.  Clemen,  Leipzig  and  New  York,  1907  ff. 

Forstemann,  C.  E.,  "  Neues  Urkundenbuch  zur  Gesch.  der 
evangelischen  Kirchenreform "  (one  only  vol.  published), 
Hamburg,  1842. 

Harnack,  A.,  "  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,"  3  vols.  : 
"Die  Entwickelung  des  kirchlichen  Dogmas  "  ;  ii,  iii,  4th  ed., 
Tubingen,  1910. 

Hausrath,  A.,  "  Luthers  Leben,"  2  vols.,  Berlin,  1904  (2nd  re- 
impression  with  amended  preface). 

Hergenrother,  Card.  J.,  "  Handbuch  der  allgemeinen  Kirchen- 
geschichte,"  4th  ed.,  ed.  J.  P.  Kirsch,  3  vols.,  Freiburg  i/B, 
1909. 

"  Historisches  Jahrbuch,"  ed.  the  Gorres-Gesellschaft,  Miinster, 
later  Munich,  1880  ff. 

"  Historisch-politische  Blatter  fur  das  katholische  Deutschland," 
Munich,  1838  ff. 

"Hutteni  Ulr.  Opera,"  5  vol.,  ed.  Booking,  Lipsiae,  1859-1862. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xix 

(Janssen-Pastor)  Janssen,  J.,  "  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Volkes 
seit  dem  Ausgang  des  Mittelalters,"  17-18  ed.  by  L.  von 
Pastor,  vol.  1-2,  Freiburg  i/B.,  1897  ;  vol.  3,  1899.  English 
Trans.,  "  History  of  the  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the 
Middle  Ages,"  1-23,  1905;  3-41,  1900;  5-61,  1903  (see 
also  "Erlauterungen  und  Erganzungen"). 

—  "  An  meine  Kritiker.    Nebst  Erganzungen  und  Erlauterungen 

zu  den  drei  ersten  Banden  meiner  Geschichte  des  deutschen 
Volkes,"  Freiburg  i/B.,  1882. 

—  "  Ein  zweites  Wort  an  meine  Kritiker.     Nebst  Erganzungen 

und    Erlauterungen    zu    den    drei    ersten    Banden    meiner 
Geschichte  des  deutschen  Volkes,"  Freiburg  i/B.,  1883. 


Kahnis,  C.  F.  A.,  "  Die  deutsche  Reformation,"  vol.  1,  Leipzig, 
1872  (no  others  published). 

Kalkoff,  P.,  "  Forschungen  zu  Luthers  romischem  Prozess " 
("  Bibliothek  des  Kgl.  Preuss.  Histor.  Instituts  in  Rom," 
vol.  2),  Rome,  1905. 

"  Kirchenordnungen,  Die  evangelischen    des   16  Jahrhunderts," 
ed.    E.    Sehling :     1,    "  Die    Ordnungen    Luthers    fur    die 
ernestinischen  und  albertinischen  Gebiete,"  Leipzig,  1902  ; 
2,  "  Die  vier  geistlichen  Gebiete,"  etc.,  1904  ;   3,  "  Die  Mark 
Brandenburg,"  1909. 

Kohler,  W.,  "  Katholizismus  und  Reformation.  Kritisches 
Referat  iiber  die  wissenschaftlichen  Leistungen  der  neueren 
katholischen  Theologie  auf  dem  Gebiete  der  Reformations- 
geschichte,"  Giessen,  1905. 

—  "  Luther  und  die  Kirchengeschichte,"  1,  vol.  1,  Erlangen,  1900. 

Kostlin,  J.,  "  Luthers  Theologie  in  ihrer  geschichtlichen  Ent- 
wickelung  und  in  ihrem  Zusammenhang  dargestellt,"  2nd  ed., 
2  vols.,  Stuttgart,  1901. 

(Kostlin- Kawerau),  Kostlin,  J.,  "  Martin  Luther.  Sein  Leben 
und  seine  Schriften,"  5th  ed.,  continued  after  the  death  of 
the  author  by  G.  Kawerau,  2  vols.,  Berlin,  1903. 

Kolde,  Th.,  see  "  Analecta  Lutherans." 

—  "  Die    deutsche   Augustinerkongregation    und    Johann    von 

Staupitz.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Ordens-  und  Reformations- 
geschichte  nach  meistens  ungedruckten  Quellen,"  Gotha, 
1879. 

—  "Martin    Luther,  Eine   Biographie,"    2  vols.,  Gotha,   1884- 

1893. 

Lsemmer,  H.,  "  Monumenta  Vaticana  historiam  ecclesiasticam 
saeculi  XVI,  illustrantia,"  Friburgi  Brisgovise,  1861. 


xx  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

(Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch  "),  Seidemann,  J.  K.,  "  A.  Lauterbachs 
Tagebuch  auf  das  Jahr  1538.  Die  Hauptquelle  der 
Tischreden  Luthers,"  Dresden,  1872. 

Letters,    "  M.    Luthers   Brief e,    Sendschreiben   und    Bedenken," 
ed.  M.  De  Wette,  5  parts,  Berlin,  1825-1828  ;    6th  part,  ed. 
J.  K.  Seidemann,  Berlin,  1856. 

Loesche,  G.,  see  Mathesius,  "  Aufzeichriungen  "  ;  Mathesius, 
"  Historien." 

Loscher,  V.  E.,  "  Vollstandige  Reformationsacta  und  Doku- 
menta,"  3  vols.,  Leipzig,  1720-1729. 

Loofs,  F.,  "  Leitfaden  zum  Studium  der  Dogmengeschichte," 
4th  ed.,  Halle  a/S.,  1906. 

Luthardt,  C.  E.,  "  Die  Ethik  Luthers  in  ihren  Grundziigen,"  2nd 
ed.,  Leipzig,  1875. 

Luther's  Works  :  1,  Complete  editions  of  his  works,  see  "  Werke," 
"Opera  Lat.  var.,"  "Opera  Lat.  exeg.,"  " Commentarius 
in  Epist.  ad  Galatas,"  Romerbriefkommentar ;  2,  Corre- 
spondence, see  Letters,  Correspondence,  and  "Analecta"; 
3,  Table-Talk,  see  "  Tischreden,"  ed.  Aurifaber,  ed.  Forste- 
mann,  also  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.  vol.  57-62,  "  Werke,"  Halle, 
ed.,  vol.  22,  "  Colloquia,"  Cordatus,  Lauterbach,  Mathesius, 
"  Aufzeichnungen,"  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  Schlagin- 
haufen  ;  4,  on  other  matters  see  "  Analecta,"  "  Disputa- 
tionen,"  "  Symbolische  Bucher." 

(Mathesius,  "  Aufzeichnungen "),  Loesche,  G.,  "  Analecta 
Lutherana  et  Melanchthoniana,  Tischreden  Luthers  und 
Ausspriiche  Melanchthons  hauptsachlich  nach  den  Auf- 
zeichnungen des  Johannes  Mathesius,  aus  der  Niirnberger 
Handschrift  im  Germanischen  Museum  mit  Beniitzung 
von  Seidemanns  Vorarbeiten,"  Gotha,  1892. 

Mathesius,  J.,  "  Historien  von  des  ehrwiirdigen  in  Gott  seligen 
thewren  Manns  Gottes  Doctoris  Martini  Luther  Anfang 
Lehr,  Leben  und  Sterben,"  Niirnberg,  1566,  ed.  G.  Loesche, 
Prague,  1898  and  1906  ("  Bibliothek  deutscher  Schriftsteller 
aus  Bohmen,"  vol.  9).  Our  quotations  are  from  the  Nurem- 
berg ed. 

(Mathesius,  "Tischreden"),  Kroker,  E.,  "Luthers  Tischreden 
in  der  Mathesischen  Sammlung.  Aus  einer  Handschrift  der 
Leipziger  Stadtbibliothek,"  ed.  Leipzig,  1903. 

Maurenbrecher,  W.,  "  Studien  und  Skizzen  zur  Geschichte  der 
Reformationszeit,"  Leipzig,  1874. 

—  "  Geschichte  der  katholischen  Reformation,"  1  vol.,  Nord- 
lingen,  1880. 

Melanchthon,  see  "  Analecta,"  by  Loescho. 
Melanchthon,  see  "  Vita  Lutheri." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxi 

"  Melanchthonis  opera  omnia,"  ed.  Bretschneider  (in  "  Corpus 
Reformatorum,"  vol.  1-28),  Halis  Saxoniae,  1834-1863. 

Mohler,  J.  A.,  "  Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte,"  ed.  Pius  Gams, 
3  vols.,  Ratisbon,  1868. 

—  "  Symbolik  oder  Darstellung  der  dogmatischen  Gegensatze  der 

Katholiken  und  Protestanten  nach  ihren  offentlichen 
Bekenntnisschriften,"  1st  ed.,  Ratisbon,  1832  ;  10th  ed., 
with  additions,  by  J.  M.  Raich,  Mayence,  1889. 

Mb'ller,  W.,  "  Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte,"  3  vols.,  "  Re- 
formation und  Gegenreformation,"  ed.  G.  Kawerau,  3rd 
ed.,  Tubingen,  1907. 

Muller,  K.,  "  Luther  und  Karlstadt.  Stiicke  aus  ihrem  gegen- 
seitigen  Verhaltnis  untersucht,"  Tubingen,  1909. 

—  "  Kirche  Gemeinde  und  Obrigkeit  nach  Luther,"  Tubingen, 

1910. 

Miinzer,  Th.,  "  Hochverursachte  Schutzrede  und  Antwort  wider 
das  geistlose  sanftlebende  Fleisch  zu  Wittenberg,"  ed.  Enders 
("  Neudrucke  deutscher  Literaturwerke,"  No.  118),  Halle, 
1893. 

"  Neudrucke  deutscher  Literaturwerke  des  16  und  17  Jahr- 
hunderts,"  Halle,  1876  ff. 

"  Nuntiaturberichte  aus  Deutschland  nebst  erganzenden 
Aktenstucken  :  1,  1533-1559,  ed.  Kgl.  Preuss.  Institut 
in  Rom,  &  Kgl.  Preuss.  Archivverwaltung  ;  vols.  5-6, 
"  Nuntiaturen  Morones  und  Poggios,"  "  Legationen  Farneses 
und  Cervinis,  1539-1540,"  ed.  L.  Cardauns  ;  "  Gesandtschaft 
Campeggios,"  "  Nuntiaturen  Morones  und  Poggios,  1540- 
1541,"  ed.  L.  Cardauns,  Berlin,  1909. 


Lat.  exeg."),  "  M.  Lutheri  Exegetica  opera  latina," 
cur.  C.  Elsperger,  28  voll.,  Erlangae,  1829  sqq.  (also  published 
apart),  "  D.  M.  Lutheri  Commentarius  in  Epistolam  ad 
Galatas,"  ed.  I.  A.  Irmischer,  3  voll.,  Erlangse,  1843,  sq. 

("  Opp.  Lat.  var."),  "  M.  Lutheri  Opera  latina  varii  argument! 
ad  reformationis  historiam  imprimis  pertinentia,"  cur. 
H.  Schmidt,  voll.  1-7,  Francofurti,  1865  sqq.  (part  of  the 
Erlangen  ed.  of  Luther's  works). 

Oergel,  G.,  "  Vom  jungen  Luther.  Beitrage  zur  Lutherforschung," 
Erfurt,  1899. 

Pastor,  L.  von,  "  Geschichte  der  Papste  seit  dem  Ausgang  des 
Mittelalters.  Mit  Benutzung  des  papstlichen  Geheimarchivs 
und  vieler  anderer  Archive  bearbeitet,"  vols.  1-3  in  3rd-4th 
ed.,  Freiburg  i/B.,  1901,  1904,  1899  ;  vol.  4  first  half  1906, 
second  half  1907  ;  vol.  5  1909.  English  Trans.,  "  History 
of  the  Popes  from  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages,"  1-2  3,  1906  ; 
3-4  2,  1900  ;  5-62,  1901  ;  7-81,  1908. 


xxii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Paulsen,  F.,  "  Geschichte  des  gelehrten  Unterrichts  auf  den 
deutschen  Schulen  und  Universitaten  vom  Ausgang  des 
Mittelalters  bis  zur  Gegenwart.  Mit  besonderer  Riicksicht 
auf  den  klassischen  Unterricht,"  Leipzig,  1885,  2nd  ed., 
2  vols.  1896-1897. 

Paul  us,  N.,  "  Die  deutschen  Dominikaner  im  Kampfe  gegen 
Luther,  1518-1563 "  ("  Erlauterungen  und  Erganzungen 
zu  Janssens  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Volkes,"  vol.  4,  1-2). 
Freiburg  i/B.,  1903. 

—  "  Hexenwahn  und   Hexenprozess  vornehnilich   im    16  Jahr- 

hundert,"  Freiburg  i/B.,  1910. 

—  "  Luther  und  die  Gewissensfreiheit  "  ("  Glaube  und  Wissen," 

Hft.  4),  Munich,  1905. 

—  "  Luthers  Lebensende.     Eine  kritische  Untersuchung  "  ("  Erl- 

auterungen und  Erganzungen  zu  Janssens  Geschichte  des 
deutschen  Volkes,"  vol.  1,  P.  1),  Freiburg  i/B.,  1898. 

—  "  Kaspar    Schatzgeyer,    ein    Vorkampfer    der    katholischen 

Kirche-  gegen  Luther  in  Siiddeutschland  "   ("  Strassburger 
theologische  Studien,"  vol.  3,  1),  Freiburg  i/B.,  1898. 

—  "  Johann  Tetzel,  der  Ablassprediger,"  Mayence,  1899. 

—  "  Bartholomaus  Arnoldi  von  Usingen  "  ("  Strassburger  theo- 

logische Studien,"  vol.  1,  3),  Freiburg  i/B.,  1893. 

"  Quellen  und  Forschungen  aus  dem  Gebiete  der  Geschichte  in 
Verbindung  mit  ihrem  historischen  Institut  zu  Rom,"  ed. 
the  Gorres-GeseUschaft,  Paderborn,  1892  ff. 

"  —  aus  den  italienischen  Archiven  und  Bibliotheken,"  ed. 
Kgl.  Preuss.  Histor.  Institut  in  Rom,  Rome,  1897  ff. 

"  Quellenschriften  zur  Geschichte  des  Protestantismus  zum 
Gebrauch  in  akademischen  Ubungen,"  in  Verbindung  mit 
anderen  Fachgenossen  ed.  J.  Kunze  and  C.  Stange,  Leipzig, 
1904,  ff. 


JOldecop),  "  Joh.  Oldecops  Chronik,"  ed.  K.  Euling  ("Bibl.  des 
literarischen  Vereins  von  Stuttgart,"  vol.  190),  Tiibingen, 
1891. 

(Ratzeberger),  "  Ratzeberger  M.,  Handschriftliche  Geschichte 
iiber  Luther  und  seine  Zeit,"  ed.  Ch.  G.  Neudecker,  Jena, 
1850. 

"  Raynaldi  Annales  ecclesiastici.  Accedunt  notae  chronologicae," 
etc.,  auct.  J.  D.  Mansi,  Tom.  12-14,  Lucse,  1755. 

"  Reformationsgeschichtliche  Studien  und  Texte,"  ed.  J.  Greving, 
Miinster  i/W.,  1906  ff. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxiii 

"  Reichstagsakten,  Deutsche,"  N.S.,  2  vols.  :  "  Deutsche 
Reichstagsakten  unter  Karl  V,"  ed.  Adolf  Wrede.  At  the 
command  of  H.M.  the  King  of  Bavaria,  ed.  by  the  Historical 
Commission  of  the  Kgl.  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften, 
Gotha,  1896. 

Riff  el,  K.,  "  Christliche  Kirchengeschichte  der  neuesten  Zeit, 
von  dem  Anfange  der  grossen  Glaubens-  und  Kirchenspaltung 
des  16  Jahrhunderts,"  3  vols.  (vol.  1,  2nded.),  Mayence,  1842- 
1846. 

Ritschl,  A.,  "  Rechtfertigung  und  Versohnung,"  3  vols.,  2nd  ed., 
Bonn,  1882  f. 

—  O.,  "  Dogmengeschichte  des  Protestantismus,"  vol.  1,  Leipzig, 
1908. 

Romans,  Commentary  on,  Ficker,  J.,  "  Luthers  Vorlesung  tiber 
den  Romerbrief  1515-1516,"  Glossen,  2,  Scholien  ("Anfange, 
reformatorischer  Bibelauslegung,"  ed.  J.  Ficker,  vol.  1), 
Leipzig,  1908. 

"  Sammlung  gemeinverstandlicher  Vortriige  und  Schriften  aus 
dem  Gebiete  der  Theologie  und  Religionsgeschichte."  Tu- 
bingen and  Leipzig,  1896  ff. 

Scheel,  O.,  "  Luthers  Stellung  zur  Heiligen  Schrift  "  ("  Sammlung 
gemeinverstandlicher  Vortrage  und  Schriften  aus  dem 
Gebiete  der  Theologie,"  No.  29),  Tubingen,  1902. 

(Schlaginhaufen,  "  Aufzeichnungen  "),  "  Tischreden  Luthers 
aus  den  Jahren  1531  und  1532  nach  den  Aufzeichnungen  von 
Johann  Schlaginhaufen  aus  einer  Miinchener  Handschrift," 
ed.  W.  Preger,  Leipzig,  1888. 

"  Scholia  Rom,"  see  Romans,  Commentary  on. 

"  Schriften    des    Vereins    fur  Reformationsgeschichte,"    Halle, 

1883  ff. 
Seckendorf,  V.  L.  a,  "  Commentarius  historicus  et  apologeticus 

de  Lutheranismo  sive  de  reformatione  religionis  ductu  D. 

Martini  Lutheri  .  .  .  recepta  et  stabilita,"  Lipsise,  1694. 

Spahn,  M.,  "  Johann  Cochlaus.  Ein  Lebensbild  aus  der  Zeit 
der  Kirchenspaltung,"  Berlin,  1898. 

"  Studien  und  Darstellungen  aus  dem  Gebiete  der  Geschichte. 
Im  Auftrage  der  Gorres-Gesellschaft  und  in  Verbindung  mit 
der  Redaktion  des  Historischen  Jahrbuches,"  ed.  H.  Grauert, 
Freiburg  i/B.,  1900  ff. 

"  Studien  und  Kritiken,  Theologische.  Zeitschrift  fiir  das 
gesamte  Gebiet  der  Theologie,"  Hamburg,  later,  Gotjja, 
1835  ff. 

("  Symbolische  Biicher "),  Miiller  H.  T.,  "Die  symbolischen 
Bticher  der  evangelisch-lutherischen  Kirche  deutsch  und 
lateinisch.  Mit  einer  neuen  historischen  Einleitung  VOD  Tb. 
Kolde,"  10th  ed.,  Giitersloh,  1907. 


xxiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

"  Table-Talk,"  see  "  Tischreden." 

"  Tischreden  oder  Colloquia  M.  Luthers,"  ed.  Aurifaber,  2  vols., 
Eisleben,  1564-1565. 

(Tischreden  ed.  Forstemann),  Forstemann,  K.  E.,  "  Dr.  Martin 
Luthers  Tischreden  oder  Colloquia.  Nach  Aurifabers  erster 
Ausgabe  mit  sorgfaltiger  Vergleichung  sowohl  der  Stangwald- 
ischen  als  der  Selneccerschen  Redaktion,"  4  vols.  (4th  vol. 
ed.  with  assistance  of  H.  E.  Bindseil),  Leipzig,  1844-1848. 

Ulenberg,  C.,  "  Historia  de  Vita  .  .  .  Lutheri,  Melanchthonis, 
Matth.  Flacii  Illyrici,  G.  Maioris  et  Andr.  Osiandri,"  2  voll., 
Colonize,  1622. 


("  Vita  Lutheri  "),  "  Melanchthonis  Philippi  Vita  Lutheri,"  in 
"  Vitse,  quatuor  reformatorum,"  Berolini,  1841.  Also  in 
"  Corp.  Ref."  6,  p.  155  sq.  and  previously  as  Preface  to  the 
2nd  vol.  of  the  Wittenberg  Latin  edition  of  Luther's  works. 

Walther,  W.,  "  Fur  Luther,  Wider  Rom.  Handbuch  der  Apolo- 
getik  Luthers  und  der  Reformation  den  romischen  Anklagen 
gegeniiber,"  Halle  a/S.,  1906. 

Weiss,  A.  M.,  O.P.,  "  Lutherpsychologie  als  Schlussel  zur  Luther- 
legende.  Denifles  Untersuchungen  kritisch  nachgeprvift," 
Mayence,  1906  ;  2nd  ed.,  1906. 

—  "  Luther  und  Luthertum,"  2,  see  Denifle. 

("  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.),  "  M.  Luthers  samtliche  Werke,"  67  vols.,  ed. 
J.  G.  Plochmann  and  J.  A.  Irmischer,  Erlangen,  1826-1868, 
vols.  1-20  and  24-26,  2nd  ed.,  ed.  L.  Enders,  Frankfurt  a/M., 
1862  ff.  To  the  Erl.  ed.  belong  also  the  Latin  "  Opp.  Lat. 
exeg.,"  the  "  Commentar.  in  Epist.  ad.  Galat.,"  the  "  Opp. 
Lat.  var.,"  and  the  Correspondence  (Brief wechsel)  ed.  by 
Enders  (see  under  these  four  titles). 

—  Weim.  ed.,  "  Dr.  Martin  Luthers  Werke.     Kritische  Gesamt- 

ausgabe,"  Weimar,  1883  ff.,  ed.  J.  Knaake,  G.  Kawerau, 
P.  Pietsch,  N.  Miiller,  K.  Drescher  and  W.  Walther.  So  far 
(Jan.,  1911)  there  have  appeared  vols.  1-9  :  10,  1,  2,  3  ; 
11-16  ;  17,  1  ;  18-20  ;  23-29  ;  30,  2  ;  3  ;  32  ;  33  ;  34,  1,  2  ; 
36;  37.  "Deutsche  Bibel  (1522-1541),"  2  vols.  with 
introductions. 

— *Altenburg  ed.,  1661-1664,  10  vols.  (German)  ;  reprinted 
Leipzig,  1729-1740,  22  vols. 

—  Eisleben    ed.    ("  Supplement   zur   Wittenberger   und    Jenaer 

Ausg."),  ed.  J.  Aurifaber,  2  vols.,  1564-1565. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxv 

"  Werke,"  Halle  ed.,  ed.  J.  G.Walch,24vols.,  1740-1753  (German), 
"Neue  Ausgabe  im  Auftrage  des  Ministeriums  der  deutschen 
evangelisch-lutherischen  Synode  von  Missouri,  Ohio  und 
andern  Staaten,"  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  Zwickau,  Schriftenverein, 
22  vols.,  1880-1904,  23  (index),  1910. 

—  Jena  ed.,  8  vols.  of  German  and  4  vols.  of  Latin  writings,  1555- 

1558  ;   re-edited  later. 

—  Wittenberg  ed.,  12  vols.  of  German  (1539-1559)  and  7  vols. 

of  Latin  writings  (1545-1558). 

—  "  Auswahl,"  ed.  Buchwald,  Kawerau,  Kostlin,  etc.,  8  vols., 

3rd  ed.,   Brunswick  and  Berlin,    1905  ff.  ;    also   2  supple- 
mentary vols. 

Wiedemann,  Th.,  "  Johann  Eck,  Professor  der  Theologie  an  der 
Universitat  Ingolstadt,"  Ratisbon,  1865. 

Works  (Luther's),  see  "  Werke." 

"  Zeitschrift  fur  katholische  Theologie,"  Innsbruck,  1877  ff. 
"  —  fiir  Kirchengeschichte,"  ed.  Th.  Brieger,  Gotha,  1877  ff. 
"  —  fiir  Theologie  und  Kirche,"  Tubingen,  1890  ff. 

"  Zwinglii  H.  Opera.  Completa  editio  prima  cur.  M.  Schulero 
et  H.  Schulthessio,"  8  voll.  (voll.  7  et  8  "  epistolao "), 
Turici,  1828-1842.  In  "Corpus  Reformatorum "  (2  vols.), 
voll.  88-89,  Berlin  and  Leipzig,  1905-1908. 


INTRODUCTION 

(PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  AND  SECOND  GERMAN 
EDITIONS) 

THE  author's  purpose  in  the  present  work  x  has  been  to  give 
an  exact  historical  and  psychological  picture  of  Luther's 
personality,  which  still  remains  an  enigma  from  so  many 
points  of  view.  He  would  fain  present  an  accurate  delinea- 
tion of  Luther's  character  as  seen  both  from  within  and  from 
outside  throughout  the  history  of  his  life  and  work  from  his 
earliest  years  till  his  death.  He  has,  however,  placed  his 
hero's  interior  life,  his  spiritual  development  and  his  psychic 
history  well  in  the  foreground  of  his  sketch. 

The  external  history  of  the  originator  of  the  great  German 
schism  has  indeed  been  dealt  with  fully  enough  before  this. 
Special  historical  studies  on  the  various  points  of  his  career 
and  times  exist  in  great  number  and  are  being  daily  added  to. 
Whenever  necessary,  the  author  has  made  use  of  such 
existing  material,  although  these  works  are  only  rarely 
quoted,  in  order  not  to  overload  the  book. 

Everyone  knows  with  what  animation  Luther's  life  has 
recently  been  discussed,  how  his  doctrines  have  been  probed, 
and  how  they  have  been  compared  and  contrasted  with  the 
theology  of  the  Middle  Ages.  The  Commentary  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  a  work  of  Luther's  youth,  which  was 
first  made  use  of  by  Denifle  and  which  now  exists  in  a 
printed  form,  has  supplied  very  important  new  material  for 
the  study  of  the  rise  of  his  opinions.  With  the  assistance 
of  this  work  it  has  become  possible  to  give  an  entirely  new 
explanation  of  how  the  breach  with  Rome  came  about. 
With  regard  to  the  actual  questions  of  dogma,  it  has  been 
my  endeavour  to  bestow  upon  them  the  attention  necessary 
for  a  right  comprehension  of  history  ;  at  the  same  time  the 
theological  element  can  only  be  considered  as  secondary, 
our  intention  being  to  supply  an  exact  portrait  of  Luther 
as  a  wrhole,  which  should  emphasise  various  aspects  of  his 

1  Luther,  von  HARTMANN  GRISAR,  S.  J.  (Herdersche  Verlagshandlung, 
Freiburg  im  Breisgau,  1911-12). 


xxviii  INTRODUCTION 

mind  and  character,  and  not  to  write  a  history  of  dogma, 
much  less  a  controversial  or  theological  tract.  The  investiga- 
tion of  his  mind,  of  his  intellectual  and  moral  springs  of 
action,  and  of  the  spiritual  reaction  which  he  himself 
experienced  from  his  life's  work,  is  indispensably  neces- 
sary if  we  wish  to  do  justice  to  the  man  who  so  powerfully 
influenced  the  development  of  Europe,  and  to  form  a  correct 
idea  of  the  human  sides,  good  as  well  as  bad,  of  his  character. 

We  have  preferred,  when  sketching  the  psychological 
picture,  to  do  so  in  Luther's  own  words.  This  method  was, 
however,  the  most  suitable  one,  in  spite  of  its  apparent 
clumsiness ;  indeed  it  is  the  only  one  which  does  not  merely 
put  the  truth  before  the  eyes  of  the  reader,  but  likewise  the 
proofs  that  it  is  the  truth,  while  at  the  same  time  giving  an 
absolutely  life-like  picture.  It  has  frequently  been  necessary 
to  allow  Luther  to  speak  in  his  own  words  in  order  that  in 
matters  which  have  been  diversely  interpreted,  or  on  which 
he  was  somewhat  uncertain,  he  may  be  free  to  bring  forward 
the  pros  and  cons  himself  ;  we  have  thus  given  him  the 
fullest  opportunity  to  defend  or  accuse  himself.  If,  for  this 
reason,  he  is  quoted  more  often  than  some  readers  may  like, 
yet  the  originality  of  his  mode  of  expression,  which  is  always 
vivid,  often  drastic,  and  not  infrequently  eloquent,  should 
suffice  to  prevent  any  impression  of  tiresomeness. 

Luther's  personality  with  all  its  well-known  outspokenness 
has,  as  a  matter  of  course,  been  introduced,  unvarnished 
and  unexpurgated,  just  as  it  betrays  itself  in  the  printed 
pamphlets,  which  as  a  rule  give  so  vivid  a  picture  of  the 
writer,  in  the  confidential  letters,  and  in  the  chatty  talk 
with  his  friends  and  table-companions.  In  a  book  which, 
needless  to  say,  is  not  destined  for  the  edification  of  the 
young,  but  to  describe,  as  an  historical  work  should,  the 
conditions  of  things  as  they  really  were,  the  author  has  not 
thought  it  permissible  to  suppress  certain  offensive  passages, 
or  to  tone  down  expressions  which,  from  the  standpoint  of 
modern  taste,  are  often  too  outspoken.  With  regard  to  the 
Table-Talk  it  may  at  once  be  stated  that,  by  preference,  we 
have  gone  to  the  actual  sources  from  whence  it  was  taken, 
so  far  as  these  sources  are  known,  i.e.  to  the  first  Notes  made 
by  Luther's  own  pupils  and  recently  edited  from  the  actual 
MSS.  by  Protestant  scholars  such  as  Preger,  Wrampelmeyer, 
Loesche,  Kroker,  and  others. 


INTRODUCTION  xxix 

In  order  to  preserve  the  character  of  the  old-time  language, 
the  original  words  and  phrases  employed  by  Luther,  and 
also  by  his  friends,  have  been,  as  far  as  possible,  adhered  to, 
though  not  the  actual  mode  of  spelling.  A  certain  un- 
equalness  was,  however,  unavoidable  owing  to  the  fact  that 
some  of  Luther's  Latin  expressions  which  have  been  trans- 
lated into  modern  German  appear  side  by  side  with  texts  in 
old  German,  and  that  in  the  first  written  notes  of  the  Table- 
Talk  frequently  only  half  the  sentence  is  in  German,  the 
other  half,  owing  to  the  use  of  Latin  stenography,  or  because 
the  speakers  intermingled  Latin  and  German  haphazard, 
being  given  in  Latin.  Some  difficulties  presented  by  the 
German  of  that  day  have  been  made  plain  to  the  reader  by 
words  introduced  in  brackets. 

In  selecting  and  sifting  the  material,  a  watchful  eye  has 
been  kept  not  only  on  Luther's  mental  history,  but  also  on 
the  Luther-Legends,  whether  emanating  from  advocates  of 
the  Wittenberg  Doctor  or  from  his  Catholic  opponents.  It  is 
a  remarkable  phenomenon  only  to  be  explained  by  the 
ardent  interest  taken  in  the  struggle  which  Luther  called 
forth,  how  quickly  and  to  what  an  extent  legendary  matter 
accumulated,  and  with  what  tenacity  it  was  adhered  to. 
The  inventions  which  we  already  find  flourishing  luxuriantly 
in  the  earliest  panegyrics  on  the  Reformer  and  in  the  oldest 
controversial  works  written  to  confute  him  (we  express  no 
opinion  on  the  good  faith  of  either  side),  are  many  of  them 
not  yet  exploded,  but  continue  a  sort  of  tradition,  even  to 
the  present  day.  Much  that  was  false  in  the  tales  dating 
from  the  outset,  whether  in  Luther's  favour  or  to  his  dis- 
advantage, is  still  quoted  to-day,  in  favour  of  or  against  him. 
In  the  light  of  a  dispassionate  examination  the  cloud-banks 
of  panegyrics  and  embellishments  tend,  however,  to  vanish 
into  thin  air,  though,  on  the  other  hand,  a  number  of  dark 
spots  which  still  clung  to  the  memory  of  the  man — owing 
to  hasty  acceptance  of  the  statements  of  older  anti-Lutheran 
writers,  have  also  disappeared. 

The  Protestant  historian,  Wilhelm  Maurenbrecher,  de- 
clared in  1874  in  his  "  Studien  und  Skizzen  zur  Geschichte 
der  Reformationszeit  "  (p.  239),  that  a  good  life  of  Luther 
could  not  soon  be  written  owing  to  the  old  misrepresenta- 
tions having  given  birth  to  a  fable  convenue  ;  "  the  rubbish 
and  filth  with  which  the  current  theological  view  of  the 


xxx  INTRODUCTION 

Reformation  period  has  been  choked  up,  intentionally  or 
unintentionally,  is  too  great,  and  the  utter  nonsense 
which  it  has  been  the  custom  to  present  and  to  accept  with 
readiness  as  Luther's  history,  is  still  too  strong."  Mauren- 
brecher,  speaking  of  the  Protestant  tradition,  felt  himself 
justified  in  alluding  to  "  a  touching  affection  for  stories 
which  have  become  dear."  During  the  forty  years  or  so 
which  have  elapsed  since  then,  things  have,  however,  im- 
proved considerably.  Protestant  scholars  have  taken  on 
themselves  the  honourable  task  of  clearing  away  the  rubbish. 
Nevertheless,  looking  at  the  accounts  in  vogue  of  Luther's 
development,  one  of  the  most  recent  historians  of  dogma, 
writing  from  Luther's  own  camp,  at  the  very  commencement 
of  a  work  dealing  with  the  Reformer's  development,  declares  : 
"  We  still  possess  no  reliable  biography  of  Luther."  So  says 
Wilhelm  Braun  in  his  work,  "  Die  Bedeutung  der  Con- 
cupiscenz  in  Luthers  Leben  und  Lehre  "  (Berlin,  1908). 

The  excrescences  on  the  Catholic  side  have  also  been 
blamed  by  conscientious  Catholic  historians.  I  am  not  here 
speaking  of  the  insulting  treatment  of  Luther  customary  with 
some  of  the  older  polemical  writers,  with  regard  to  which 
Erasmus  said :  "  Si  scribit  adversus  Luiherum,  qui  subinde 
vocat  ilium  asinum,  stipitem,  bestiam,  cacodcemonem,  anti- 
christum,  nihil  eratfacilius  quam  in  ilium  scribere"  ("  Opp.," 
ed.  Lugd.,  3,  col.  658) ;  I  am  speaking  rather  of  the  great 
number  of  fables  and  false  interpretations  which  have  been 
accepted,  mostly  without  verification.  Concerning  these 
Joseph  Schmidlin  says  in  his  article,  "  Der  Weg  zum 
historischen  Verstandnis  des  Luthertums  "  (III.,  "  Vereins- 
schrift  der  Gorresgesellschaft  fur  1909,"  p.  32  f.) :  "  The 
Luther-problem  has  not  yet  found  a  solution.  .  .  .  To 
what  an  extent  the  apologetico-dogmatic  method,  as 
employed  by  Catholics,  can  deviate  from  historical  truth  is 
proved  down  to  the  present  day  by  the  numerous  contro- 
versial pamphlets  merely  intended  to  serve  the  purposes  of 
the  moment.  .  .  .  The  historical  point  of  view,  on  the 
contrary,  is  splendidly  adapted  to  bring  into  evidence  the 
common  ground  on  which  Catholic  and  Protestant  scholars 
can,  to  a  certain  extent,  join  hands." 

While  confronting  the  fables  which  have  grown  up  on 
either  side  with  the  simple  facts  as  they  are  known,  I  was, 
naturally,  unwilling  to  be  constantly  denouncing  the 


INTRODUCTION  xxxi 

authors  who  were  responsible  for  their  invention  or  who  have 
since  made  them  their  own,  and  accordingly,  on  principle, 
I  have  avoided  mentioning  the  names  of  those  whose 
accounts  I  have  rectified,  and  confined  myself  to  the  facts 
alone  ;  in  this  wise  I  hope  to  have  avoided  giving  offence 
or  any  reason  for  superfluous  personal  discussions.  I  trust 
that  it  is  clear  from  the  very  form  of  the  book,  which  deals 
with  Luther  and  with  him  alone,  that  the  history  of  the 
Wittenberg  Doctor  is  my  only  concern  and  that  I  have  no 
wish  to  quarrel  with  any  writer  of  olden  or  more  recent 
times.  I  have  been  able  to  profit  by  the  liberty  thus 
attained,  to  attack  the  various  fables  without  the  slightest 
scruple. 

With  regard  to  the  other  details  of  the  work  ;  my  inten- 
tion being  to  write  a  psychology  of  Luther  based  on  his 
history,  it  necessarily  followed  that  some  parts  which  were 
of  special  importance  for  this  purpose  had  to  be  treated  at 
greater  length,  whereas  others,  more  particularly  historical 
events  which  had  already  been  repeatedly  described,  could 
be  passed  over  very  lightly. 

Owing  to  the  psychological  point  of  view  adopted  in  this 
work  the  author  has  also  been  obliged  to  follow  certain  rules 
in  the  division  and  grouping.  Some  sections  had  to  be 
devoted  to  the  consideration  of  special  points  in  Luther's 
character  and  in  the  direction  of  his  mind,  manifestations  of 
which  frequently  belong  to  entirely  different  periods  of  his 
life.  Certain  pervading  tendencies  of  his  life  could  be 
treated  of  only  in  the  third  volume,  and  then  only  by  going 
back  to  elements  already  portrayed,  but  absolutely  essential 
for  a  right  comprehension  of  the  subject.  Without  some 
such  arrangement  it  seemed  impossible  to  explain  satis- 
factorily his  development,  and  to  produce  a  convincing 
picture  of  the  man  as  a  whole. 

Although  a  complete  and  lengthy  description  has  been 
devoted  to  Luther's  idea  of  his  higher  mission  (vol.  iii.,  ch. 
xvi.) — a  subject  rightly  considered  of  the  greatest  interest 
—yet  the  growth  of  this  idea,  its  justification,  and  its 
various  phases,  is  really  being  dealt  with  throughout  the 
work.  The  thoughtful  reader  will  probably  be  able  to 
arrive  at  a  decision  as  to  whether  the  idea  was  well  founded 
or  not,  from  the  historical  materials  furnished  by  Luther 
himself.  He  will  see  that  the  result  which  shines  out  from 


xxxii  INTRODUCTION 

the  pages  of  this  book  is  one  gained  purely  by  means  of 
history,  and  that  the  mere  scientific  process  is  sufficient  to 
smooth  the  way  for  a  solution  of  the  question ;  to  discuss  it 
from  a  sectarian  standpoint  never  entered  into  my  mind. 

The  writer's  unalterable  principle  on  this  point  has  been, 
that  in  historical  studies  the  religious  convictions  of  the 
author  must  never  induce  him  to  set  aside  the  stubborn 
facts  of  the  past,  to  refuse  their  full  importance  to  the 
sources,  or  pusillanimously  to  deny  the  rightful  deductions 
from  history.  This,  however,  does  not  mean  that  he  has 
imposed  on  himself  any  denial  of  his  religious  convictions. 
Just  as  the  convinced  Protestant,  when  judging  of  historical 
facts,  cannot  avoid  showing  his  personal  standpoint,  and 
just  as  the  freethinking  historian  applies  his  own  standard 
everywhere  in  criticising  events  both  profane  and  religious, 
so  the  Catholic  too  must  be  free  to  express  his  opinion  from 
the  point  of  view  of  his  own  principles  as  soon  as  the  facts 
have  been  established.  The  unreasonableness  and  im- 
possibility of  writing  a  history  from  which  personal  con- 
victions are  entirely  absent  has  been  recognised  by  all 
competent  authorities,  and,  in  a  subject  like  that  here 
treated,  this  is  as  plain  as  day.  Such  an  artificial  and  unreal 
history  of  Luther  would  surely  be  dreary  and  dull  enough  to 
frighten  anyone,  apart  from  the  fact  that  Luther  himself, 
whose  fiery  nature  certainly  admitted  nothing  of  indifference, 
would  be  the  first  to  protest  against  it,  if  he  could. 

Is  it  really  impossible  for  a  Catholic  historian  to  depict 
Luther  as  he  really  was  without  offending  Protestant 
feelings  in  any  way  ?  Without  any  exaggerated  optimism, 
I  believe  it  to  be  quite  possible,  because  honesty  and 
historical  justice  must  always  be  able  to  find  a  place  some- 
where under  the  sun  and  wherever  light  can  be  thrown,  even 
in  the  most  delicate  historical  questions.  In  the  extracts 
from  my  studies  on  Luther  (cp.  for  instance  the  article 
"Der  'gute  Trunk'  in  den  Lutheranklagen,  eine  Revision"  in 
the  "  Historisches  Jahrbuch,"  1905,  pp.  479-507),  Protestants 
themselves  admitted  that  the  matter  was  treated  "  with 
entire  objectivity "  and  acknowledged  the  "  moderate 
tone  "  which  prevailed  throughout.  Such  admissions  were 
to  me  a  source  of  real  pleasure.  Other  critics,  highly  pre- 
judiced in  favour  of  Luther,  actually  went  so  far  as  to 
declare,  that  this  impartiality  and  moderation  was  "  all  on 


INTRODUCTION  xxxiii 

the  surface "  and  a  mere  "  ingenious  make-believe," 
employed  only  in  order  the  better  to  deceive  the  reader. 
They  took  it  upon  themselves  to  declare  it  impossible  that 
certain  charges  made  against  Luther  should  have  been 
minimised  by  me  in  real  earnest,  and  various  good  aspects  of 
his  character  admitted  frankly  and  with  conviction.  Such 
discoveries,  as  far-fetched  as  they  are  wanting  in  courtesy, 
may  be  left  to  take  care  of  themselves,  though  I  shall  not  be 
surprised  to  be  again  made  the  object  of  similar  personal 
insults  on  the  appearance  of  this  book. 

I  may,  however,  assure  Protestant  readers  in  general, 
whose  esteem  for  Luther  is  great  and  who  may  be  dis- 
agreeably affected  by  certain  passages  in  this  book  which  are 
new  to  them,  that  the  idea  of  offending  them  by  a  single 
word  was  very  far  from  my  intention.  I  am  well  aware,  and 
the  many  years  I  have  passed  at  home  in  a  country  of  which 
the  population  is  partly  Catholic  and  partly  Protestant  have 
made  it  still  clearer  to  me,  how  Protestants  carry  out  in  all 
good  faith  and  according  to  their  lights  the  practice  of  their 
religion.  Merely  in  view  of  these,  and  quite  apart  from  the 
gravity  of  the  subject  itself,  everything  that  could  be  looked 
on  as  a  challenge  or  an  insult  should  surely  be  avoided  as  a 
stupid  blunder.  I  would  therefore  ask  that  the  book  be 
judged  impartially,  and  without  allowing  feelings,  in  them- 
selves quite  natural,  to  interfere  unduly  ;  let  the  reader  ask 
himself  simply  whether  each  assertion  is,  or  is  not,  proved 
by  the  facts  and  witnesses.  As  regards  the  author,  however, 
he  would  ask  Ms  readers  to  remember  that  we  Catholics  (to 
quote  the  words  of  a  Swiss  writer)  "  are  not  prevented  by 
the  view  we  hold  of  the  Church,  from  rejoicing  over  all  that 
our  separated  brethren  throughout  the  world  have  preserved 
of  the  inheritance  of  Christ,  and  display  in  their  lives,  that, 
on  the  contrary,  our  best  and  sincerest  esteem  is  for  the  bona 
fides  of  those  who  think  otherwise  than  we  "  ("  Schwei- 
zerische  Kirchenzeitung,"  1910,  No.  52,  December  29). 

With  regard  to  "  inconvenient  facts,"  Friedrich  Paulsen 
wrote  in  his  "  Geschichte  des  gelehrten  Unterrichts  "  (I2, 
1896,  p.  196) :  "  If  Protestant  historians  had  not  yielded  so 
much  to  the  inclination  to  slur  over  inconvenient  facts, 
Janssen's  '  History  of  the  German  People  '  [English  trans., 
1901-1909]  would  not  have  made  the  impression  it  did — 
surely  an  '  inconvenient  fact '  for  many  Protestants."  The 


xxxiv  INTRODUCTION 

same  respected  Protestant  scholar  also  has  a  word  to  say  to 
those  who  were  scandalised  at  some  disagreeable  historical 
home-truths  which  he  had  published,  "  as  though  it  were  my 
fault  that  facts  occurred  in  the  history  of  the  Reformation 
which  a  friendly  biographer  of  Luther  must  regret." 

Even  in  the  Protestant  world  of  the  present  day  there  is 
a  very  general  demand  for  a  plain,  unvarnished  picture  of 
Luther.  "  Atnicus  Lutherus  magis  arnica  reritas,"  as  Chr. 
Rogge  said  when  voicing  this  demand  ;  the  same  writer  also 
admitted  that  there  was  "  much  to  be  learnt  from  the  Catho- 
lics, even  though  they  emphasised  Luther's  less  favourable 
qualities  " ;  that,  "  we  could  not  indeed  expect  them  to  look 
at  Luther  with  our  eyes,  but  nevertheless  we  have  not  lost 
all  hope  of  again  finding  among  them  men  who  will  fight  the 
Monk  of  Wittenberg  with  weapons  worthy  of  him."  And 
further,  "  the  scholar  given  up  to  historical  research  can  and 
ought  to  strive  to  bring  the  really  essential  clement  of  these 
struggles  to  the  knowledge  and  appreciation  of  his  oppo- 
nents, for,  if  anywhere,  then  surely  in  the  two  principal 
camps  of  Christendom,  large-minded  polemics  should  be 
possible"  ("Zum  Kampfe  um  Luther"  in  the  "  Tiirmer," 
January,  1906,  p.  490). 

I  have  not  only  avoided  theological  polemics  with 
Protestants,  but  have  carefully  refrained  from  considering 
Protestantism  at  all,  whether  that  of  to-day  or  of  the  two 
previous  centuries.  To  show  the  effects  of  Luther's  work 
upon  the  history  of  the  world  wras  not  my  business.  The 
object  of  my  studies  has  not  been  Lutheranism,  but  Luther 
himself  considered  apart  from  later  Protestantism,  so  far  as 
this  was  possible  ;  of  course,  we  cannot  separate  Luther 
from  the  effects  he  produced,  he  foresaw  the  results  of  his 
work,  and  the  acceptance  of  this  responsibility  was  quite 
characteristic  of  him.  I  will  only  say,  that  the  task  I  set 
myself  in  this  work  closes  with  the  first  struggles  over  his 
grave.  I  may  remark  further,  that  the  Luther  of  theology, 
even  in  Protestant  circles,  is  being  considered  more  and 
more  as  an  isolated  fact.  Are  there  not  even  many  Protes- 
tant theologians  who  at  the  present  day  allow  him  no  place 
whatever  in  the  theological  and  philosophical  doctrines 
which  they  hold  ?  Indeed,  is  it  not  an  understood  thing 
with  many  of  our  Protestant  contemporaries,  to  reject 
entirely  or  in  part  the  doctrines  most  peculiar  and  most  dear 


INTRODUCTION  xxxv 

to  Luther.  Two  years  ago  the  cry  was  raised  for  "  a  further 
development  of  religion,"  for  "  a  return  from  Trinitarian  to 
Unitarian  Christianity,  from  the  dogmatic  to  the  historic 
Christ,"  and  at  the  same  time  the  Allgemeine  Evangelisch- 
Lutherische  Konferenz  at  Hanover  received  a  broad  hint 
that,  instead  of  wasting  time  in  working  for  the  Lutheran 
tenets,  they  would  be  better  employed  in  devising  a  Chris- 
tianity which  should  suit  the  needs  of  the  day  and  unite  all 
Protestants  in  one  body.  In  these  and  similar  symptoms  we 
cannot  fail  to  see  a  real  renunciation  of  Luther  as  the  founder 
of  Protestant  belief,  for  there  are  many  who  refuse  to  hold 
fast  even  to  that  rudimentary  Christianity  which  he,  in 
agreement  with  all  preceding  ages,  continued  to  advocate. 
Only  on  account  of  his  revolt  against  external  authority  in 
religious  questions  and  his  bitter  opposition  to  the  Papacy, 
is  he  still  looked  up  to  as  a  leader.  There  is  therefore  all  the 
less  reason  for  the  historian,  who  subjects  Luther  to  his 
scrutiny,  to  fear  any  reproach  of  having  unwarrantably 
assailed  the  Protestantism  of  to-day. 

As  in  these  pages  my  only  object  has  been  to  examine 
Luther's  person,  his  interior  experiences  and  his  opinions 
from  the  point  of  view  of  pure  history,  I  think  I  have  the 
right  to  refuse  beforehand  to  be  drawn  into  any  religious 
controversy.  On  the  other  hand,  historical  criticism  of  facts 
will  always  be  welcomed  by  me,  whether  it  comes  from  the 
Catholic  or  from  the  Protestant  camp,  and  will  be  par- 
ticularly appreciated  wherever  it  assists  in  elucidating  those 
questions  which  still  remain  unsolved  and  to  which  I  shall 
refer  when  occasion  arises. 

Finally,  an  historical  reminiscence,  which  carries  us  back 
to  the  religious  contradictions  as  they  existed  in  Germany  a 
hundred  years  ago,  may  not  be  out  of  place.  At  that  time 
Gottlieb  Jakob  Planck  of  Wurttemberg,  Professor  of 
Theology  at  Gottingen,  after  the  lengthy  and  unprofitable 
polemics  of  earlier  ages,  made  a  first  attempt  to  pave  the 
way  for  a  more  just  treatment  by  the  Protestant  party  of 
Luther's  history  and  theology.  In  his  principal  work,  i.e.  in 
the  six  volumes  of  his  "  Geschichte  der  Entstehung,  der 
Veranderung  und  der  Bildung  unseres  protestantischen 
Lehrbegriffs  "  (finished  in  1800),  he  ventured,  with  all  the 
honesty  of  a  scholar  and  the  frankness  natural  to  a  Swabian, 
to  break  through  the  time-honoured  custom  according  to 


xxxvi  INTRODUCTION 

which,  as  he  says,  all  "  those  who  dared  even  to  touch  on  the 
mistakes  of  our  reformers  were  stigmatised  as  blasphemers." 
"  While  engaged  on  this  work,"  he  declares,  "  I  never  made 
any  attempt  to  forget  I  was  a  Protestant,  but  I  hope  that  my 
personal  convictions  have  never  led  me  to  misrepresent 
other  people's  doctrines,  or  to  commit  any  injustice  or  even 
to  pass  an  unkind  judgment.  Calm  impartiality  is  all  that 
can  be  demanded."  I  should  like,  mutatis  mutandis,  to  make 
his  words  my  own,  and  to  declare  that,  while  I,  too,  have 
never  forgotten  that  I  am  a  Catholic,  I  stand  in  no  fear  of 
my  impartiality  being  impugned. 

I  would  likewise  wish  to  appropriate  the  following  words 
taken  from  Planck,  substituting  the  word  "  Protestants  "  for 
"  Catholics  "  :  "  The  justice  which  I  have  thought  it  neces- 
sary to  do  to  Catholics  may  perhaps  excite  some  surprise, 
because  some  people  can  never  understand  one's  treating 
opponents  with  fairness."  But  "  I  am  convinced  that,  if  my 
readers  are  scandalised,  this  will  merely  be  on  account  of  the 
novelty  of  the  method.  I  really  could  not  bring  myself  to 
sacrifice  truth  and  justice  to  any  fear  of  giving  offence." 
Planck  admits,  elsewhere,  speaking  of  Lutheran  history,  that 
compliance  with  the  demands  of  impartiality  in  respect  of 
certain  persons  and  events  which  he  had  to  describe,  was 
sometimes  "  incredibly  hard,"  and  he  proceeds  :  "  There  are 
circumstances  where  every  investigator  is  apt  to  get  annoyed 
unless  indeed  disinterestedness  is  to  him  a  natural  virtue. 
...  It  is  exasperating  [the  present  writer  can  vouch  for 
this]  to  have  to  waste  time  and  patience  on  certain  things." 
So  speaks  a  theologian  renowned  among  Protestants  for  his 
earnestness  and  kindliness. 

With  the  best  of  intentions  Planck  spent  part  of  his  time 
and  strength  in  the  chimerical  task  of  bringing  about  a 
"  reunion  of  the  principal  Christian  bodies."  He  wrote  a 
work,  "  Ueber  die  Trennung  und  Wiedervereinigung," 
etc.  (on  Schism  and  Reunion,  1803),  and  another  entitled 
"  Worte  des  Friedens  an  die  katholische  Kirche  "  (Words 
of  Peace  to  the  Catholic  Church,  1809).  It  was  his  desire 
"  to  seek  out  the  good  which  surely  exists  everywhere."  The 
ideas  he  put  forward  were,  it  is  true,  unsuited  for  the 
realisation  of  his  great  plan.  He  was  too  unfamiliar  with 
the  organisation  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the  limitations 
of  his  earlier  education  disqualified  him  for  the  undertaking 


INTRODUCTION  xxxvii 

he  had  in  view.  What  really  shattered  the  hopes  of  reunion 
held  by  many  during  that  period  of  triumphant  Rationalism 
was,  not  merely  the  shallowness  of  the  views  prevailing,  but 
above  all  the  spirit  of  animosity  let  loose  among  all  fervent 
Lutherans  by  the  celebration,  in  1817,  of  the  third  centenary 
of  the  Reformation.  Catholics  soon  perceived  that  reunion 
was  unfortunately  still  very  far  distant,  and  that,  in  the 
interests  of  the  public  peace,  all  that  could  be  expected  was 
the  retention  of  mutual  esteem  and  Christian  charity 
between  the  two  great  denominations. 

It  is  also  my  most  ardent  desire  that  esteem  and  charity 
should  increase,  and  this  growth  of  appreciation  between 
Catholics  and  Protestants  will  certainly  not  be  hindered  by 
the  free  and  untrammelled  discussion  of  matters  of  history. 

On  the  contrary,  as  a  Protestant  critic  of  Walter  Kohler's 
"  Katholizismus  und  Reformation  "  says,  "  it  is  to  be  hoped 
that  historical  investigation  may  lessen  the  contradictions, 
and  if  in  this  way  it  is  possible  to  come  closer  together,  not 
indeed  perhaps  to  understand  each  other  completely,  yet 
at  least  to  make  some  attempt  to  do  so,  then  something 
deeper  and  more  lasting  will  have  been  gained  than  at  the 
time  when  Rationalism  prevailed.  The  attempt  then  made 
to  bring  the  parties  together  was  the  result  of  a  levelling 
down  of  religious  beliefs,  now  the  same  object  is  sought  by 
penetrating  more  profoundly  into  the  essentials  of  the 
different  creeds  "  ("  Theologische  Literaturzeitung,"  1907, 
p.  250). 

The  quotations  from  Luther's  writings  have  been  taken  from 
the  most  recent  Weimar  edition  so  far  as  it  at  present  reaches. 
What  is  not  contained  in  the  Weimar  edition  has  been  taken  from 
the  previous  Erlangen  edition  (method  of  quotation  :  Weim.  ed., 
Erl.  ed.)  ;  the  latter  is,  however,  often  quoted  as  well  as  the 
Weimar  edition  because  it  is  more  widely  known  and  more  readily 
available  for  reference. 

Luther's  letters  have  been  taken  from  the  new  edition  of  the 
"  Brief wechsel  "  by  Enders,  which  is  also  not  yet  quite  complete. 
The  epistles  of  Luther's  later  years,  which  are  still  wanting  in 
Enders'  work,  and  also  some  of  earlier  date,  are  given  as  in  volumes 
lii.-liv.  of  the  Erlangen  edition,  where  a  great  number  of  German 
letters  are  collected,  or  else  as  in  the  old  edition  of  "  Brief e, 
Sendschreiben  und  Bedenken  "  by  De  Wette-Seidemann.  (See 
above,  p.  xvii.  ff.,  "  Correspondence,"  "  Letters,"  "  Works.") 

With  regard  to  the  other  sources  of  information  we  need  only 
state,  that  until  the  whole  of  the  "  Tischreden  "  (Table-Talk)  have 
been  edited  by  Ernst  Kroker  in  the  Weimar  series,  we  are  com- 


xxxviii  INTRODUCTION 

pelled  to  have  recourse  to  the  older  German  and  Latin  collections 
of  the  same,  together  with  the  original  notes  mentioned  above 
(p.  xx.).  Of  the  German  collection,  in  addition  to  the  work  of 
Aurifaber,  the  "Tischreden  "  of  Forstemann-Bindseil  and  of  the 
Erlangen  edition  (vols.  Ivii.-lxii.)  have  been  used,  and,  for  the 
Latin  collection,  Bindseil's  careful  edition  (see  p.  xvi.  f.). 

From  among  the  large  number  of  lives  of  Luther  which  have 
been  consulted  I  shall  mention  only  the  two  latest,  one  by  a 
Catholic,  Denifle,  and  the  other  by  two  Protestants,  Kostlin  and 
Kawerau. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say,  that  I  brought  to  the  study 
of  the  two  last-mentioned  works  an  absolutely  independent 
judgment.  The  information — universally  acknowledged 
as  extremely  valuable- — supplied  by  Denifle's  ponderous 
volumes  on  the  relation  between  Luther's  theology  and  that 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  was  of  considerable  service  to  me.  To 
Kostlin's  biography  of  Luther,  continued  by  Kawerau,  I  am 
indebted  for  some  useful  data  with  regard  to  the  history  and 
chronology  of  Luther's  writings. 

This  most  detailed  of  the  Protestant  biographies,  and  the 
most  frequently  quoted  by  me,  offers  this  further  advantage 
that  in  its  judgment  of  Luther,  his  life's  work,  and  his 
personal  qualities,  it  occupies  a  middle  line  between  two 
Protestant  extremes.  Kostlin  having  belonged  to  the  so- 
called  intermediary  school  of  theology,  the  author,  in  his 
delineation  of  Luther,  avoids  alike  certain  excesses  of  the 
conservatives  and  the  caustic,  subtilising  criticism  of  the 
rationalists.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  simple  "  Protestant 
opinion"  on  Luther;  and  Kostlin's  intermediary  treatment 
is  the  one  least  likely  to  lead  a  Catholic  to  commit  an  in^ 
justice  against  either  of  the  extreme  parties  in  Protestantism. 

Does  a  Catholic  opinion  exist  with  regard  to  Luther's 
personal  qualities  and  his  fate  ?  Does  the  much-discussed 
work  of  Denifle  represent  the  "  Catholic  feeling  "  ?  That  it 
does  has  frequently  been  asserted  by  those  most  strongly 
opposed  to  Denifle.  Yet  Denifle's  manner  of  regarding 
Luther  was,  on  the  whole,  by  no  means  simply  "  Catholic," 
but  largely  biassed  by  his  individual  opinion,  as  indeed  has 
ever  been  the  appreciation  by  Catholic  authors  of  the 
different  points  of  Luther's  character.  Only  on  those  points 
could  Denifle's  opinion  strictly  be  styled  "  Catholic  "  where 
he  makes  the  direct  acknowledgment  of  dogmas  and  the 
essential  organisation  of  the  Church  the  standard  for 


INTRODUCTION  xxxix 

Luther's  views  and  reforms  ;  and  in  this  he  certainly  had 
on  his  side  the  repudiation  of  Luther  by  all  Catholics.  A 
"  Catholic  opinion,"  in  any  other  sense  than  the  above,  is 
the  sheerest  nonsense,  and  the  learned  Dominican  would 
certainly  have  been  the  last  to  make  such  a  claim  on  his 
own  behalf.  The  present  writer  protests  beforehand  against 
any  such  interpretation  being  placed  on  his  work.  The 
following  statements,  whether  they  differ  from  or  agree  wTith 
those  of  Denifle,  must  be  looked  on  as  a  mere  attempt  to 
express  what  appears  to  the  author  to  be  clearly  contained 
in  the  sources  whence  his  information  comes.  In  all  purely 
historical  questions,  in  questions  of  fact  and  their  inferences, 
the  Catholic  investigator  is  entirely  free,  and  decides  purely 
and  simply  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  conscience. 

A  list  of  Luther's  writings  with  the  volumes  in  which  they 
occur  in  the  last  two  editions,  as  well  as  a  detailed  index  of 
subjects  and  names  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  volume,  will 
facilitate  the  use  of  this  work. 

The  author  would  like  to  take  this  opportunity  of  ex- 
pressing his  most  cordial  thanks  to  the  Royal  Bavarian 
Library  of  Munich,  and  also  to  the  University  Library  in 
that  city,  for  the  friendly  assistance  rendered  him.  These 
rich  sources  of  information  have  afforded  him,  during  his 
frequent  and  lengthy  visits  to  the  Bavarian  capital,  what 
the  libraries  of  Rome,  which  he  had  been  in  the  habit  of 
consulting  for  his  History  of  Rome  and  the  Popes  of  the 
Middle  Ages  (Eng.  trans.,  3  vols.,  1911-12),  could  not  supply 
on  the  subject  here  treated.  The  author  will  now  return  to 
the  exploitation  of  the  treasures  of  Rome  and  to  the  task  he 
originally  undertook  and  hopes  to  bring  out,  in  the  near 
future,  a  further  volume  of  the  History  of  Rome. 

THE  AUTHOR. 

MUNICH,  January  1,  1911. 


VOL.   I 
LUTHER  THE   MONK 


I.— B 


LUTHEK 


CHAPTER  I 

COURSE   OF   STUDIES   AND   FIRST   YEARS   IN   THE   MONASTERY 

1.  Luther's  Novitiate  and  Early  Life 

ON  July  16,  1505,  Martin  Luther,  then  a  student  at  the 
University  of  Erfurt,  invited  his  friends  and  acquaintances 
to  a  farewell  supper.  He  wished  to  see  them  about  him  for 
the  last  time  before  his  approaching  retirement  to  the  cloister. 
"  The  bright,  cheerful  young  fellow,"  as  his  later  pupil, 
Mathesius,1  calls  him,  was  a  favourite  in  his  own  circle. 
Those  assembled  to  bid  him  farewell,  amongst  whom  were 
also  "  honest,  virtuous  maidens  and  women,"2  were  doubt- 
less somewhat  taken  aback  at  their  friend's  sudden  deter- 
mination to 'leave  the  world;  but  Luther  was  outwardly 
"  beyond  measure  cheerful  "  and  showed  himself  so  light  of 
heart  that  he  played  the  lute  while  the  wine-cup  circled  round.3 

On  the  following  morning— it  was  the  feast  of  St.  Alexius, 
as  Luther  remembered  when  an  old  man  4 — some  of  his 
fellow-students  accompanied  him  to  the  gate  of  the  Augus- 
tinian  monastery  and  then,  with  tears  in  their  eyes,  saw 
the  doors  close  upon  him.  The  Prior,  who  was  already 
apprised  of  the  matter,  greeted  the  timid  new-comer,  em- 
braced him,  and  then,  in  accordance  with  the  Rule,  con- 
fided him  to  the  Master  of  Novices  to  be  initiated  into  the 
customs  of  the  community. 

In  the  quiet  monastic  cell  and  amid  the  strange  new 
surroundings  the  student  was  probably  able  little  by  little 

1  "  Historian,"  Bl.  3'. 

2  Account  from  the  mouth  of  Luther's  friend,  Justus  Jonas  (anno 
1538),   made   public   by   P.    Tschackert   in    "  Theolog.    Studien   und 
Kritiken,"  Jahrg.,  1897,  p.  578. 

3  Ibid.  *  "  Colloquia,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  187. 


4  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

to  master  the  excitement  which,  though  hidden  from  out- 
siders, raged  within  his  breast ;  for  the  determination  to 
become  a  monk  had  been  arrived  at  under  strange,  soul- 
stirring  circumstances.  He  was  on  his  way  back  to  Erfurt, 
after  a  visit  to  his  parents'  house,  when,  near  Stotternheim, 
he  was  overtaken  by  a  thunderstorm,  and  as  a  flash  of 
lightning  close  beside  him  threatened  him  "  like  a  heavenly 
vision,"  he  made  the  sudden  vow  :  "  Save  me,  dear  St. 
Anne,  and  I  will  become  a  monk."1  He  appears  also  at  that 
very  time  to  have  been  reduced  to  a  state  of  great  grief  and 
alarm  by  the  sudden  death  of  a  dear  comrade,  also  a  student, 
who  had  been  stabbed,  either  in  a  quarrel  or  in  a  duel. 
Thus  the  thoughts  which  had  perhaps  for  long  been  attract- 
ing his  serious  temperament  towards  the  cloister  ripened 
with  overwhelming  rapidity.  Could  we  but  take  a  much 
later  assertion  of  his  as  correct,  the  reason  of  his  resolve  was 
to  be  found  in  a  certain  vexation  with  himself  :  because  he 
"  despaired  "  of  himself,  he  once  says,  therefore  did  he 
retire  into  the  monastery.2 

It  was  his  earnest  resolution  to  renounce  the  freedom  of  his 
academic  years  and  to  seek  peace  of  soul  and  reconciliation 
with  God  in  the  bosom  of  the  pious  community.  He  per- 
sisted in  keeping  the  vow  made  in  haste  and  terror  in  spite 
of  dissuading  voices  which  made  themselves  heard  both 
within  himself  and  around  him,  and  the  determined  opposi- 
tion of  his  father  to  his  embracing  the  religious  state.  Some 
were  full  of  admiration  for  the  energetic  transformation  of 
the  new  postulant.  Thus  the  respected  Augustinian  of 
Erfurt,  Johann  Nathin,  compared  the  suddenness  and 
decision  of  his  step  to  the  one-time  conversion  of  Saul  into 
the  Apostle  Paul.3  Crotus  Rubeanus,  the  Humanist,  then 

1  "  Colloquia,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  187. 

2  Bei  K.  Jiirgens,  "  Luther  von  seiner  Geburt  bis  zum  Ablassstreite," 
1  Bd.  Leipzig,   1846,  p.  522,  from  the  unpublished  Cod.  chart,  bibl. 
due.  Goth,  168,  p.  26.    According  to  Loesche  ("  Analecta  Lutherana," 
p.  24,  n.  8)  this  MS.  (B.  168)  was  written  in  1553,  and  may  be  described 
as  a  collection  of  Luther's  opinions  on  various  persons  and  things.    On 
page  26  it  contains  a  list  entitled  "  Studia  Lutheri."    We  shall  have 
occasion  to  deal  with  Luther's  entrance  into  religion  in  volume  vi., 
chapter  xxxvii.,  2. 

3  Hier.    Dungersheim   von    Ochsenfurt,    Professor   of   Theology   in 
Leipzig,  in  a  tract  published  in  1531  in  "  Aliqua  opuscula  magistri 
Hieronymi  Dungersheym  .  .  .  contra  M.   Lutherum  edita,"   written 
in   1530,    "  Dadelung  des  .  .  .  Bekentnus  oder  untuchtigen  Luther- 
ischen    Testaments,"    Bl.    14a.      (Miinchener    Universitatsbibliothek, 
Theol.,  3099,  n.  552.) 


EARLY   LIFE  5 

stopping  at  Erfurt,  in  a  later  letter  to  Luther,  expressed 
himself  no  less  forcibly  with  regard  to  the  heavenly  flash 
which  had  made  him  a  monk.1  The  brothers  of  the  "  Ger- 
man Congregation  of  the  Order  of  Hermits  of  St.  Augustine  " 
• — such  was  the  full  title  of  the  Order — on  their  part  re- 
joiced at  the  acquisition  of  the  highly  gifted  and  promising 
youth,  who  had  already  taken  his  degree  as  Master  of 
Philosophy  at  the  University  of  Erfurt. 

If  the  novice,  after  gradually  regaining  peace  of  mind 
within  the  silent  walls,  permitted  his  thoughts  to  recur  to 
his  former  way  of  life,  this  must  have  presented  itself  to 
him  as  full  of  trouble  and  care  and  very  deficient  in  the 
homely  joys  of  family  life.  Luther's  early  career  differed 
hardly  at  all  from  that  of  the  poorest  students  of  that  time. 
He  was  bom  on  November  10,  1483,  in  Eisleben  in 
Saxony  ;  his  parents  were  Hans  Luther,  a  miner  of  peasant 
extraction  (he  signed  himself  Luder)  and  Margaret  Luther. 
They  had  originally  settled  in  the  town  of  Mansfeld,  but  had 
gone  first  to  Mohra  and  then  to  Eisleben.  Their  gifted  son 
spent  his  childhood  in  Mansfeld  and  first  attended  school 
there.  His  father  was  a  stern,  harsh  man.  His  mother,  too, 
though  she  meant  well  by  him,  once  beat  him  till  the  blood 
came,  all  on  account  of  a  nut.2  The  boy  was  also  intimi- 
dated by  the  stupid  brutality  of  his  teachers,  and  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  customary  religious  teaching  he  received, 
raised  his  spirits  or  led  to  a  freer,  more  hopeful  develop- 
ment of  his  spiritual  life.  He  was  one  day,  as  he  relates 
later,  "  beaten  fifteen  times  in  succession  during  one  morn- 
ing "  at  school,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  without  any 
fault  of  his  own,  though,  probably,  not  without  having 
brought  the  punishment  upon  himself  by  insubordination 
and  obstinacy.  After  that,  in  his  fourteenth  year,  he  received 
instruction  in  Magdeburg  from  the  "  Pious  Brethren  of  the 
Common  Life,"  and  begged  his  bread  by  singing  from  door 
to  door.  A  year  later  he  went  to  Eisenach,  where  his  mother 
had  some  poor  relatives,  to  continue  his  Latin  studies. 
In  this  town  he  still  pursued  the  same  hard  mode  of  earning 
his  living,  until  a  charitable  woman,  Ursula,  the  wife  of 
Kunz  (Konrad)  Cotta,  received  him  into  her  well-to-do  and 

1  "  Hutteni  Opp.,"  ed.  Booking,  1,  p.  309. 

2  "  Tischreden."    ed.  Forstemann,   4,   p.   129 ;    Mathesius,    "  Auf 
zeichnungen,"  p.  235. 


6  LUTHER  THE   MONK 

comfortable  household,  furnishing  him  with  food  and  lodging. 
Luther,  in  his  old  age,  recalled  with  great  gratitude  the 
memory  of  his  noble  benefactress.1 

As  a  boy  he  had  experienced  but  little  of  life's  pleasures 
and  received  small  kindness  from  the  world  ;  but  now  life's 
horizon  brightened  somewhat  for  the  growing  youth. 

Full  of  enthusiasm  for  the  career  mapped  out  for  him  by 
his  father,  that,  namely,  of  the  Law,  he  went  in  the  summer 
of  1501  to  the  University  of  Erfurt.  His  parents'  financial 
circumstances  had  meanwhile  somewhat  improved  as  the 
result  of  his  father's  industry  in  the  mines  at  Mansfeld. 
The  assiduous  student  was  therefore  no  longer  dependent  on 
the  help  of  strangers.  According  to  some  writers  he  took 
up  his  abode  in  St.  George's  Hostel.2  He  was  entered  in  the 
Matriculation  Register  of  the  Erfurt  High  School  as  "  Mar- 
tinus  Ludher  ex  Mansfelt,"  and  for  some  considerable  time 
after  he  continued  to  spell  his  family  name  as  Luder,  a  form 
which  is  also  to  be  found  up  to  the  beginning  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  in  the  case  of  others  (Liider,  Luider,  Leuder). 
From  1512  he  began,  however,  to  sign  himself  "  Lutherus  " 
or  "  Luther."3  The  lectures  on  philosophy,  understood  in  the 
widest  sense  of  the  term,  which  he  first  attended  were 
delivered  at  the  University  of  Erfurt  by  comparatively 
capable  teachers,  some  of  whom  belonged  to  the  Augustinian 
Order.  The  Catholic  spirit  of  the  Middle  Ages  still  per- 
meated the  teaching  and  the  whole  life  of  the  little  republic 
of  learning.  As  yet,  learning  was  still  cast  in  the  mould  of 
the  traditional  scholastic  method,  and  the  men,  equally 
devoted  to  the  Church  and  to  their  profession,  who  were 
Luther's  principal  teachers,  Jodocus  Trutfetter  of  Eisenach 
and  Bartholomew  Arnoldi  of  Usingen,4  later  an  Augustinian, 
were  well  versed  in  the  scholastic  spirit  of  the  day. 

Alongside  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  schools  there 
already  existed  in  Erfurt  and  the  neighbourhood  another, 
viz.  that  of  the  Humanists,  or  so-called  poets,  which,  though 
largely  at  variance  with  Scholasticism,  was  cultivated  by 
many  of  the  best  minds  of  the  day.  Luther,  with  his  vivacity 
of  thought  and  feeling,  could  not  long  remain  a  stranger  to 

1  Mathesius,  "  Historian,"  Bl.  3. 

2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  744,  n.  1,  p.  31. 

3  Ibid.,  1,  p.  754,  n.  2,  p.  166. 

4  N.  Paulus,   "  Bartholomaus  Arnoldi  von  Usingen,"  Freiburg  im 
Breisgau,  1893. 


HUMANIST   FRIENDS  7 

them.  With  their  spiritual  head  Mutianus  at  Gotha,  close 
by,  they  formed  one  of  the  more  prominent  groups  of  Ger- 
man Humanists,  although,  so  far,  they  had  not  produced 
any  work  of  great  consequence.  The  contrast  between 
Humanism  and  Scholasticism,  which  was  to  come  out  so 
strongly  at  a  later  period,  was  as  yet  hardly  noticeable  in  the 
Erfurt  schools.  Crotus  Rubeanus,  at  that  time  a  University 
friend  of  Luther's,  became  at  a  later  date,  however,  the 
principal  author  of  the  "  Epistolae  Obscurorum  Virorum," 
a  clever  and  biting  libel  on  monks  and  Scholastics,  written 
from  a  Humanist  standpoint.  Crotus  boasted  subsequently 
of  his  intimate  intercourse  ("  summa  familiaritas  ")  with 
Luther. 1 

Another  Humanist  friend  whose  spiritual  relationship  with 
him  dates  from  that  time,  was  Johann  Lang,  afterwards  an 
Augustinian  monk,  with  whom  Luther  stood  in  active  inter- 
change of  thought  during  the  most  critical  time  of  his 
development,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  letters  quoted  below, 
and  who,  caught  up  by  the  Lutheran  movement,  left  his 
Order  2  to  become  the  first  preacher  of  the  new  faith  in 
Erfurt.  The  third  name  which  we  find  in  connection  with 
Luther  is  that  of  Kaspar  Schalbe,  a  cousin,  or  possibly  a 
brother  of  the  lady  already  mentioned,  Mistress  Ursula 
Cotta  of  Eisenach.  Schalbe  did  not  turn  out  any  better 
than  the  others.  A  few  years  later,  on  being  charged  before 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  with  a  crime  against  morality,  he  was 
glad  to  avail  himself  of  Luther's  mediation  with  the  Ruler 
of  the  land.3  Finally,  we  also  know  that  a  later  patron  and 
supporter  of  Luther,  the  Humanist  Spalatinus,  was  then 
carrying  on  his  studies  in  Erfurt.  George  Burckhardt  of 
Spalt — whence  his  name  Spalatinus — was  a  student  there 
from  1498  to  1502,  and,  from  1505  to  1508,  was  engaged  as 

1  "  Hutteni  Opp.,"  ed.  Booking,   1,  p.  309.     Cp.  1,  p.  307,  ep.  1, 
"  Martino  Luthero,  amico  suo  antiquissimo." 

2  Th.  Kolde,  "  Die  deutsche  Augustinerkongregation  und  Johann 
von  Staupitz,"  Gotha,  1879,  p.  380. 

3  Luther  to  Spalatinus,  July  3,  1526  (see  "  Brief wechsel,"  5,  p.  366). 
To  the  Elector  Johann   of  Saxony,   November   15,    1526  :    Luther's 
"Werke,"  Erl.  ed.  54,  p.  50  ("  Brief wechsel,"  5,  p.  403).    Johann  of 
Saxony  to  Luther,  November  26,   1526;   "  Brief  wechsel,"   5,   p.  409. 
Luther  to  the  same,  March  1,   1527  :   "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.  53,  p.  398 
("Brief wechsel,"    6,  p.  27).     On  the  three  friends  mentioned  in  the 
text,  see  A.  Hausrath,   "Luthers  Bekehrung"   ("  Neue  Heidelberger 
Jahrbiicher,"   6,   1896,  pp.   163— 66  ff.  and  idem.  "Luthers  Leben,"  1, 
1904,  p.  14  ff.). 


8  LUTHER   THE   MONK 

a  clerical  preceptor  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  town. 
Luther  and  Spalatinus  always  looked  on  themselves  later 
as  early  friends  whom  fate  had  brought  together. 

As  a  student,  Luther  devoted  himself  with  great  zest  to 
the  various  branches  of  philosophy,  and,  carried  away  by 
the  spirit  of  the  Humanists,  in  his  private  time  he  studied 
the  Latin  classics,  more  particularly  Cicero,  Virgil,  Livy, 
Ovid,  also  Terence,  Juvenal,  Horace  and  Plautus.  At  a 
later  date  he  was  able  to  make  skilful  use  of  quotations  from 
these  authors  when  occasion  demanded.  Amongst  others,  he 
attended  the  lectures  of  Hieronymus  Eraser,  a  subsequent 
opponent  well  worth  his  metal.  Of  his  life  during  those 
years,  which,  owing  to  the  laxity  of  morals  prevailing  in  the 
town,  must  have  been  full  of  danger  for  him,  we  learn  little, 
owing  to  the  silence  of  our  sources.  Luther  himself  in  his 
later  years  coarsely  described  the  town  as  a  "  beer  house  " 
and  a  "  nest  of  immorality." 

Unlike  his  frivolous  comrades,  he  was  often  beset  with 
heavy  thoughts,  no  doubt  largely  due  to  the  after  effects  of 
his  gloomy  youth.  Among  his  chums  he  was  known  as 
"  Musicus,"  on  account  of  his  learning  to  play  the  lute, 
and  as  the  "  Philosopher,"  owing  to  his  frequent  fits  of 
moodiness. 

In  the  monastery,  where  the  reader  icft  him,  he  no  doubt 
remained  subject  to  such  fits  of  depression,  especially  at 
the  beginning  when  dwelling  on  his  change  of  life.  It  is 
difficult  to  say  how  far  the  feeling  of  self-despair,  which  he 
mentions,  had  mastered  him  before  his  entry  into  conventual 
life.  In  later  years,  apart  from  the  vow  and  the  mysterious 
"  heavenly  terror,"  he  also  says  that  in  leaving  the  world 
he  was  seeking  to  escape  the  severity  of  his  parents.  His 
statements,  however,  do  not  always  agree.  As  for  the  pre- 
cipitate vow  to  enter  a  monastery,  he  must  have  been  well 
aware  that,  even  if  valid  when  originally  made,  it  was  no 
longer  binding  on  him  from  the  day  when,  after  conscientious 
self-examination,  he  became  aware  that,  owing  to  his  natural 
disposition,  he  had  no  vocation  for  a  religious  life.  Not 
every  character  is  fitted  for  carrying  out  the  evangelical 
counsels,  and  to  force  oneself  into  a  mould,  however  good, 
for  which  one  is  manifestly  unsuited  is  certainly  not  in 
accordance  with  the  will  of  a  wise  and  beneficent  Providence. 

Luther,  agreeably  with  the  statutes  of  the  Order,  during 


THE   NOVITIATE  9 

the  whole  period  of  his  novitiate  and  until  the  hour  of  his 
profession  had  arrived,  was  perfectly  free  to  return  to  his 
fellow-students,  the  religious  tie  never  having  been  intended 
to  bring  him  misery  in  place  of  the  happiness  which  it 
promises.  Immediately  after  coming  to  the  monastery,  i.e. 
before  his  clothing,  he  was,  according  to  the  Rule,  given 
considerable  time  in  which  to  weigh  earnestly,  under  the 
direction  of  an  experienced  brother  of  the  Order,  whether, 
as  stated  in  the  statutes  of  the  Augustinians,  "  the  spirit 
which  was  leading  him  was  of  God."  Only  after  this  did  he 
receive  the  habit  of  the  Order,  apparently,  however,  in  the 
same  year,  1505.  The  habit  consisted  of  a  white  woollen 
tunic  and  scapular,  and  a  black  mantle  with  a  hood  and 
wide  sleeves  to  be  worn  over  all.1 

After  the  clothing  began  the  novitiate,  which  lasted  a 
whole  year.  During  this  period  the  candidate  had  not  only 
to  undertake  a  series  of  exercises  consisting  in  prayer, 
manual  labour  and  penitential  works,  but  had  also  to  dis- 
charge certain  humiliating  offices,  which  might  help  him  to 
acquire  the  virtue  of  humility  as  practised  in  the  Order. 
Out  of  consideration  for  the  University  and  his  academic 
dignity  Luther  was,  however,  speedily  exempted  from  some 
of  the  latter  duties.  It  appears  that  during  his  noviceship 
he  was  attentive  to  the  rules,  and  that  the  superiors  treated 
him  with  fatherly  kindness.  Although  some  members  of  the 
community  may  have  observed  the  Rule  from  routine,  while 
others,  as  is  often  the  case  in  large  communities,  may  not 
have  been  conspicuous  for  their  charity- — Luther  refers  to 
something  of  this  kind  in  his  Table- Talk- — yet  the  spirit  of 
the  Erfurt  monastery  was,  like  that  of  most  of  the  other 
houses  of  the  Congregation,  on  the  whole  quite  blameless. 
The  novice  himself,  as  yet  full  of  goodwill,  was  not  only 
satisfied  with  his  calling,  but  even  looked  on  the  state  he 
had  chosen  as  a  "  heavenly  life."2 

From  the  very  first,  however,  as  he  himself  complains 
later,  he  was  constantly  "  worried  and  depressed  "3  by 
thoughts  connected  with  religion.  He  was  sorely  troubled 
by  the  fear  of  God's  judgment,  by  gloomy  thoughts  on  pre- 
destination, and  by  the  recollection  of  his  own  sins.  Al- 

1  See  Paulus,  "  Joh.  Hoffmeister,"  1891,  p.  4. 

2  Cp.  below,  p.  16.    Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  73. 

3  To  Hier.  Weller  (July  ?),  1530,  "  Brief wechsel,"  8,  p.  159. 


10  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

though  he  made  a  general  confession  in  the  monastery  and 
renewed  it  again  later,  his  confessions  never  gave  him  any 
satisfaction,  so  that  his  director  laid  on  him  the  obligation 
not  to  hark  back  to  things  which  caused  him  sadness  of  spirit 
nor  to  dwell  on  the  details  of  his  sins.  "  You  arc  a  fool," 
he  once  said  to  him ;  "  God  is  not  angry  with  you,  but  it  is 
you  who  are  angry  with  Him." 

Those  versed  in  the  ways  of  the  spiritual  life  are  well 
aware  that  many  a  one  aiming  at  perfection  is  exposed  to 
the  purifying  fire  of  trials  such  as  these.  Traditional 
Catholic  teaching  and  the  experience  of  those  skilled  in  the 
direction  of  conventual  inmates  had  laid  down  the  remedies 
most  effectual  for  such  a  condition.  What  Luther  himself 
relates  later  with  regard  to  the  encouragement  he  received 
from  his  superiors  and  brothers  in  the  monastery,  shows 
clearly  that  suitable  direction,  enlightenment  and  encourage- 
ment were  not  wanting  to  him  either  then  or  in  the  following 
years.  He  himself  praises  his  "  Pracceptor  "  and  "  monastic 
pedagogue,"  i.e.  the  Novice-Master,  as  "  a  dear  old  man,"1 
who  "  under  the  damned  frock  was  without  doubt  a  true 
Christian."2  It  was  probably  he  who  said  to  him  in  an  hour 
of  trial  that  he  should  always  recall  the  article  of  the  Creed 
"  I  believe  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins."3  "  What  are  you 
doing,  my  son  ?  "  he  said  to  him  on  another  occasion ;  "do 
you  not  know  that  the  Lord  has  Himself  commanded  us  to 
hope?  "4  words  which  made  a  great  and  unforgettable  im- 
pression on  him.  Later,  in  the  year  1516,  he  pointed  out 
another  brother,  Master  Bartholomew  (Usingen),  as  the 
"  best  paraclete  and  comforter  "5  in  the  Erfurt  monastery, 
as  he  could  testify  from  his  own  experience.  The  monks 
knew  well  and  impressed  it  upon  his  troubled  mind  that, 

1  Letter  to  the  Elector  (April  or  June  ?,   1540),  ed.   Seidemann, 
"  Lauterbachs  Tagebuch,"  p.  197. 

2  In  the  Preface  to  Bugenhagen's  (Pomeranus)  edition  of  "Athan- 
asius  contra  idolatriam,"  etc.,  Wittenbergse,  1532.     He  there  recalls 
having  read  the  Dialogue  of  Athanasius  and  Arius  "  with  zeal  and  a 
glow  of  faith,"  "  primo  anno  monachatus  mei,  cum  Erfordice  pcedagogus 
meus  mona-ilicus  vir  sane  optimus  et  absque  dubio  sub  damnato  cucullo 
verus  christianus  mihi  eum  sua  manu  descriptum  dedisset  legendum  "  (Cp. 
"Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  19,  p.  100). 

3  Ph.  Melanchthonis  Vita  Lutheri  ("  Vitae  qiiattuor  reformatorum," 
Berolini,  1841),  p.  5. 

4  "  Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  19,  p.  100. 

6  To  George  Leiffer,  April  15,  1516,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  31. 
"  Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  ibid. 


INWARD   UNREST  11 

through  the  merits  of  the  Redeemer,  and  after  earnest 
preparation  of  the  soul,  true  forgiveness  may  be  obtained, 
and  that  through  the  cross  of  Christ,  and  through  it  alone, 
\ve  can  do  all  things  necessary,  even  in  the  midst  of  the 
bitterest  assaults. 

Luther,  however,  too  often  responded  to  such  admonitions 
only  by  cherishing  his  own  views  the  more.  He  continued 
morbidly  to  torment  himself.  This  self-torture,  at  any  rate 
during  the  first  enthusiastic  days  of  his  religious  life,  may 
have  assumed  the  form  of  pious  scruples,  but  later  it  gradu- 
ally took  on  another  character  under  the  influence  of  bodily 
affections.  He  did  not,  like  other  scrupulous  persons,  regain 
his  peace  of  mind,  because,  led  away  by  his  distorted  and 
excited  fancy,  he  liked,  as  he  himself  admits,  to  dwell  on 
the  doubts  as  to  whether  the  counsels  he  received  were  not 
illusion  and  deception.  Sad  experience  taught  him  into 
what  devious  paths  and  to  "  what  a  state  of  inward  unrest, 
self-will  and  self-sufficiency  are  capable  of  leading  a  man."1 

The  Superior  or  Vicar-General  of  the  Saxon  or  German 
Augustinian  Congregation  to  which  Luther  belonged  was 
at  that  time  Johann  Staupitz,  a  man  highly  esteemed  in 
the  world  of  learning  and  culture. 

He  frequently  visited  Erfurt  and  had  thus  the  opportunity 
of  talking  to  the  new  brother  whom  the  University  had 
given  him,  and  who  may  well  have  attracted  his  attention 
by  his  careworn  look,  his  restless  manner  and  his  peculiar, 
bright,  deep-set  eyes.  Staupitz  soon  began  to  have  a  great 
esteem  for  him.  He  had  great  influence  over  Luther,  though 
unable  to  free  him  from  the  strange  spirit,  already  too 
deeply  rooted.  To  the  sad  doubts  concerning  his  own  salva- 
tion which  Brother  Martin  laid  before  him,  Staupitz  replied 
by  exhorting  him  as  follows  in  the  spirit  of  the  Catholic 
Church  :  "  Why  torment  yourself  with  such  thoughts  and 
breedings  ?  Look  at  the  wounds  of  Christ  and  His  Blood 
shed  for  you.  There  you  will  see  your  predestination  to 
heaven  shining  forth  to  your  comfort."2  Quite  rightly  he 
impressed  upon  him,  in  the  matter  of  confession  and  penance, 
that  the  principal  thing  was  to  arouse  in  himself  the  will 
to  love  God  and  righteousness,  and  that  he  must  not  pause 
before  unhealthy  imaginations  of  sin.  The  lines  of  thought, 

1  To  Leiffer,  ibid. 

2  "Lutheri  Opp.  Let.  exeg.,"  6,  p.  296. 


12  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

however,  which  the  imaginative  and  emotional  young  man 
laid  bare  to  him,  were  probably  at  times  somewhat  strange, 
and  it  is  Luther  himself  who  relates  that  Staupitz  once  said 
to  him  :  "  Master  Martin,  I  fail  to  understand  that." 

In  spite  of  his  inward  fears  Luther  persevered,  which 
goes  to  prove  the  strength  of  will  which  was  always  one  of 
his  characteristics.  As  the  Order  was  satisfied  with  him,  he 
was  admitted  at  the  end  of  the  year  of  novitiate  to  pro- 
fession by  the  taking  of  the  three  Vows  of  the  Order.  He 
received  on  this  occasion  the  name  of  Augustine,  but  always 
preferred  to  it  his  baptismal  name  of  Martin.  The  text  of 
the  Vows  which  he  read  aloud  solemnly  before  the  altar, 
according  to  custom,  in  the  presence  of  the  Prior  Winand  of 
Diedenhofen  and  all  the  brothers,  was  as  follows  :  "  I, 
Brother  Augustine  Luder,  make  profession  and  vow  obedi- 
ence to  Almighty  God,  Blessed  Mary  ever  Virgin  and  to 
thee  Father  Prior,  in  the  name  of,  and  as  representing  the 
Superior- General  of  the  Hermits  of  St.  Augustine,  and  his 
successors,  likewise  to  live  without  property  and  in  chastity 
until  death,  according  to  the  Rule  of  our  Holy  Father 
Augustine."  The  young  monk,  voluntarily  and  after  due 
consideration,  had  thus  taken  upon  himself  the  threefold 
yoke  of  Christ  by  the  three  Vows,  i.e.  by  the  most  solemn 
and  sacred  promise  which  it  is  possible  to  make  on  earth. 
He  had  bound  himself  by  a  sacred  oath  to  God  to  prepare 
himself  for  heaven  by  treading  a  path  of  life  in  which  per- 
fection is  sought  in  the  carrying  out  of  the  evangelical 
counsels  of  our  Saviour,  and  throughout  his  life  to  combat 
the  temptations  of  the  world  with  the  weapons  of  poverty, 
chastity  and  obedience. 

Such  was  the  solemn  Vow,  which,  later  on,  he  declared  to 
have  been  absolutely  worthless. 

2.  Fidelity  to  his  new  calling ;  his  temptations 

After  making  his  profession  the  young  religious  was  set 
by  his  Erfurt  superiors  to  study  theology,  which  was  taught 
privately  in  the  monastery. 

The  theological  fare  served  up  by  the  teachers  of  the  Order 
was  not  very  inviting,  consisting  as  it  largely  did  of  the  mere 
verbalism  of  a  Scholasticism  in  decay.  With  the  exception 
of  the  Sentences  of  Peter  Lombard,  the  students  at  the 
Erfurt  monastery  did  not  study  the  theological  works  of  the 


LUTHER'S   PROFESSORS  13 

great  masters  of  the  thirteenth  century  ;  neither  Thomas 
of  Aquin,  the  prince  of  scholastic  theology  and  philosophy, 
nor  his  true  successors,  not  even  JSgidius  Romanus,  himself 
a  Hermit  of  St.  Augustine,  were  well  known  to  them.  The 
whole  of  their  time  at  Erfurt,  as  elsewhere  also,  was  de- 
voted to  the  study  of  the  last  of  the  schoolmen  who,  indeed, 
stood  nearer  in  point  of  time,  but  who  were  far  from  teaching 
the  true  doctrine  with  the  fulness  and  richness  of  the  earlier 
doctors.  They  were  too  much  given  to  speculation  and 
logical  word-play.  The  older  schoolmen  were  no  longer 
appreciated  and  nominalistic  errors,  such  as  were  fostered 
in  the  school  of  William  of  Occam,  held  the  field.  One  of 
the  better  schoolmen  of  the  day  was  Gabriel  Biel.  His 
works,  which  have  a  certain  value,  together  with  some  of 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  formed  the  principal 
arsenal  from  which  Luther  drew  his  theological  knowledge, 
and  upon  which  he  exercised  his  dialectics.  In  addition  to  this, 
he  also  studied  the  theological  tractates  of  John  Gerson 
and  Cardinal  Peter  d'Ailly,  works  which,  apart  from  other 
theological  defects,  contain  various  errors  concerning  the 
authority  of  the  Church  and  her  Head ;  that  these  particular 
errors  had  any  deeper  influence  on  the  direction  of  Luther's 
mind  cannot,  however,  be  proved.  What  we  do  find  is  that 
the  one-sidedness  of  this  school,  with  its  tendency  to  hair- 
splitting, had  a  negative  effect  upon  him.  At  an  early  date 
he  was  repelled  by  the  scholastic  subtleties,  for  which, 
according  to  him,  Aristotle  alone  was  responsible,  and  pre- 
ferred to  turn  to  the  reading  and  study  of  the  Bible.  He 
nevertheless  made  the  prevalent  school  methods  so  much  his 
own  as  to  apply  them  often,  in  a  quite  surprising  fashion, 
in  his  earliest  sermons  and  writings. 

The  man  who  exercised  the  greatest  influence  on  the 
theological  study  in  the  Erfurt  monastery  was  the  learned 
Augustinian,  Johann  Paltz,  who  was  teaching  there  when 
Luther  entered.  He  was  a  good  Churchman  and  a  fair 
scholar,  and  was  also  much  esteemed  as  a  preacher.  By 
his  side  worked  Johann  Nathin,  who  has  already  been 
mentioned,  likewise  one  of  the  respected  theologians  of  the 
Order.1  Luther's  teachers,  full  of  veneration  for  the  Holy 

1  On  Luther's  teachers  and  studies,  see  Oergel,  "  Vom  jungen 
Luther,"  p.  105  f.  ;  for  Paltz,  see  N.  Paulus  in  the  Innsbruck 
"Zeitschrift  f.  kath.  Theologie,"  23,  1899,  p.  48. 


14  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

Scriptures  as  the  revealed  Word  of  God,  were  not  at  all 
displeased  to  see  their  pupil  having  frequent  recourse  to 
the  Bible,  in  order  to  seek  in  the  well  of  the  Divine  Word 
instruction  and  enlightenment,  by  which  to  supplement 
the  teachings  of  the  schoolmen  and  the  Fathers. 

Luther  had,  moreover,  already  become  acquainted  with 
the  Bible  in  the  library  of  the  Erfurt  University,  whilst  still 
engaged  in  studying  philosophy.  He  had,  however,  not 
prosecuted  his  reading  of  the  Bible,  though  the  same  library 
would  doubtless  have  supplied  him  with  numerous  well- 
thumbed  commentaries  on  Holy  Writ.  In  the  monastery 
a  copy  of  the  Bible  was  given  him  at  the  beginning  of  his 
theological  course.  It  was,  as  we  learn  from  him  incidentally, 
a  Latin  translation  bound  in  red  leather,  and  remained  in 
his  hands  until  he  left  Erfurt.  The  statutes  of  the  Order 
enjoined  on  all  its  members  "  assiduous  reading,  devout 
hearing  and  industrious  study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures." 

The  young  monk  immersed  himself  more  and  more  in  the 
study  of  his  beloved  Bible  when  Staupitz,  the  Vicar,  advised 
him  to  select  the  same  as  his  special  subject  in  order  to 
render  himself  a  capable  "  localis  and  textualis  "  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures. 

The  Superior  seems  to  have  had  even  then  the  intention 
of  making  use  later  of  Luther  as  a  public  professor  of 
biblical  lore.  So  ardently  was  the  Vicar's  advice  followed 
by  Luther  that,  in  his  preference  for  reading  the  Bible  and 
studying  its  interpretation,  he  neglected  the  rest  of  his 
theological  education,  and  his  teacher  Usingen  was  obliged 
to  protest  against  his  one-sided  study  of  the  sacred  text. 
So  full  was  Luther  of  the  most  sacred  of  books,  that  he  was 
able  (at  least  this  is  what  he  says  later)  to  show  the  wondering 
brothers  the  exact  spot  in  his  ponderous  red  volume  where 
every  subject,  nay  even  every  quotation,  was  to  be  found. 
It  was  with  great  regret  that,  on  leaving  this  community, 
he  found  himself  prohibited  by  the  Rule  from  taking  the 
copy  away  with  him.  Later,  as  an  opponent  of  the  religious 
life,  he  states  that  no  one  but  himself  read  the  Bible  in  the 
monastery  at  Erfurt,  whilst  of  his  foe  Carlstadt,  a  former 
University  colleague,  he  bluntly  says  that  he  had  never  seen 
a  Bible  until  he  was  promoted  to  the  dignity  of  Doctor.  Of 
course,  neither  assertion  can  be  taken  literally. 

When  the  day  drew  nigh  for  him  to  celebrate  his  first  Mass 


HIS   FIRST   MASS  15 

as  newly  ordained  priest,  he  invited  not  only  his  father 
but  several  other  guests  to  be  present  at  a  ceremony  which 
meant  so  much  both  to  him  and  to  his  friends.  Thus,  in  a 
letter  of  invitation  to  Johann  Braun,  Vicar  in  Eisenach,  who 
had  shown  him  much  kindness  and  help  during  his  early 
years  in  that  town,  he  says  that :  "  God  had  chosen  him, 
an  unworthy  sinner,  for  the  unspeakable  dignity  of  His 
service  at  the  altar,"  and  begged  his  fatherly  friend  to 
come,  and  by  his  prayers  to  assist  him  "  so  that  his  sacrifice 
might  be  pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God."  He  also  expressed 
to  him  his  great  indebtedness  to  Schalbe's  College  at  Eisenach, 
which  he  would  also  have  gladly  seen  represented  at  the 
ceremony.  This  is  the  first  letter  of  Luther's  which  has 
been  preserved  and  with  which  the  critical  edition  of  his 
"  Correspondence,"  now  being  published,  commences.1  The 
first  Mass  took  place  on  Cantate  Sunday,  May  2,  1507. 
Luther  relates  later,  with  regard  to  his  state  of  mind  during 
the  sacred  ceremony,  that  he  could  hardly  contain  himself 
for  excitement  and  fear.  The  words  "  Te  igitur  clementis- 
sime  Pater,"  at  the  commencement  of  the  Canon  of  the 
Mass,  and  "  Offero  tibi  Deo  meo  vivo  et  vero,"  at  the  oblation, 
brought  so  vividly  to  his  mind  the  Awful,  Eternal  Majesty, 
that  he  was  hardly  able  to  go  on  ("  totus  stupebam  et  co- 
horrescebam  ") ;  he  would  have  rushed  down  from  the  altar 
had  he  not  been  held  back  ;  the  fear  of  making  some  mis- 
take in  the  ceremonies  and  so  committing  a  mortal  sin,  so 
he  says,  quite  bewildered  him.2  Yet  he  must  have  known, 
with  regard  to  the  ceremonies,  that  any  unintentional  in- 
fringement of  them  was  no  sin,  and  least  of  all  a  mortal 
sin,  although  he  attributes  the  contrary  opinion  to  the 
"  Papists  "  after  his  apostasy. 

His  father  Hans  assisted  at  the  celebration.  His  presence 
in  the  church  and  in  the  refectory  was  the  first  sign  of  his 
acquiescence  in  his  son's  vocation.  But  when  the  latter, 
during  dinner,  praised  the  religious  calling  and  the  monastic 
life  as  something  high  and  great,3  and  went  on  to  recall 
the  vow  he  had  made  at  the  time  of  the  thunderstorm, 

1  April  22,  1507,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  1. 

2  "Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  6,  p    158.     (Cp.  "  Colloq."  ed.  Bindseil,  3, 
p.  169  :    "  ita  horrui,  ut  fugissem  de  altari"  etc.)      Also  Mathesius, 
"  Tischreden,"  p.  405. 

3  "  Lutheri  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"   6,  p.  239  ;   "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.  8 
p.  574. 


16  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

asserting  that  he  had  been  called  by  "  terrors  from  Heaven  " 
("  de  ccelo  terrores  "),  this  was  too  much  for  his  level-headed 
father,  who,  to  the  astonishment  of  the  guests,  sharply  inter- 
posed with  the  words  :  "  Oh,  that  it  may  not  have  been  a 
delusion  and  a  diabolical  vision."  He  could  not  overcome 
his  dislike  for  his  son's  resolve.  "I  sit  here  and  eat  and 
drink,"  he  cried,  "and  would  much  rather  be  far  away." 
Luther  retorted  he  had  better  be  content,  and  that  "  to  be 
a  monk  was  a  peaceful  and  heavenly  life."1  The  statement 
with  regard  to  the  elder  Luther  agrees  with  the  character 
of  the  man  and  with  the  severity  which  he  had  displayed 
long  before  to  Martin. 

Here  an  assertion  must  be  mentioned  made  by  George 
Wicel,  a  well-informed  contemporary ;  once  a  Lutheran,  he 
was,  from  1533-8,  Catholic  priest  at  Eisleben.  Two  or 
three  times  he  repeats  in  print,  that  Hans  Luther  had  once 
slain  a  man  in  a  fit  of  anger  at  his  home  at  Mohra.  Luther 
and  his  friends  never  denied  this  public  statement.  In 
recent  years  attempts  have  been  made  to  support  the  same 
by  local  tradition,  and  the  fact  of  the  father  changing  his 
abode  from  Mohra  to  Mansfeld  has  thus  been  accounted  for.2 
According  to  Karl  Seidemann,  an  expert  on  Luther  (1859), 
the  testimony  of  Wicel  may  be  taken  as  settling  definitively 
the  constantly  recurring  dispute  on  the  subject.3 

The  following  facts  which  have  been  handed  down  throw 
some  light  on  the  inward  state  of  the  young  man  at  this 
time  and  shortly  after. 

At  a  procession  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  he  had  to 
accompany  Staupitz,  the  Vicar,  as  his  deacon.  Such  was 
the  terror  which  suddenly  seized  him  that  he  almost  fled. 
On  speaking  afterwards  of  this  to  his  superior,  who  was  also 
his  friend,  he  received  the  following  instructive  reply  :  "  This 
fear  is  not  from  Christ ;  Christ  does  not  affright,  He  com- 
forts."4 

One  day  that  Luther  was  present  at  High  Mass  in  the 
monks'  choir,  he  had  a  fit  during  the  Gospel,  which,  as  it 

1  From   Bavarus's   Collection   of   Table-Talk ;   the   information   is 
received  from  a  sermon  of  Luther's  preached  in  1544.     Oertel,  "  Vom 
jungen  Luther,"  p.  93. 

2  F.  Falk,  "  Alte  Zeugnisse  iiber  Luthers  Vater  und  Mutter  und  die 
MOhraer,"  in  "  Histor-polit.  Blatter,"  120,  1897,  pp.  415-25. 

3  "  Lutherbriefe,"  Dresden,  1859,  p.  11,  n. 

4  "Colloq.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  2,  p.  292.    "  Tischreden,"  ed.  Forstemann, 
2,  p.  164. 


MORBID   FEARS  17 

happened,  told  the  story  of  the  man  possessed.  He  fell  to 
the  ground  and  in  his  paroxysms  behaved  like  one  mad. 
At  the  same  time  he  cried  out,  as  his  brother  monks  affirmed  : 
"  It  is  not  I,  it  is  not  I,"  meaning  that  he  was  not  the  man 
possessed.1  It  might  seem  to  have  been  an  epileptic  fit, 
but  there  is  no  other  instance  of  Luther  having  such  attacks, 
though  he  did  suffer  from  ordinary  fits  of  fainting.  Strange 
to  say,  some  of  his  companions  in  the  monastery  had  an  idea 
that  he  had  dealings  with  the  devil,  while  others,  mainly 
on  account  of  the  above-mentioned  attack,  actually  declared 
him  an  epileptic.  We  learn  both  these  facts  from  his 
opponent  and  contemporary,  Johann  Cochlaeus,  who  was 
on  good  terms  with  Luther's  former  associates.  He  asserts 
positively  that  a  "  certain  singularity  of  manner  "  had  been 
remarked  upon  by  his  fellows  in  the  monastery.2  Later  on 
his  brother  monk,  Johann  Nathin,  went  so  far  as  to  assert 
that  "  an  apostate  spirit  had  mastered  him,"  i.e.  that  he 
stood  under  the  influence  of  the  devil.3 

Melanchthon  was  afterwards  to  hear  from  Luther's  own 
lips  something  of  the  dark  states  of  terror  from  which  he 
had  suffered  since  his  youth.  When  he  speaks  of  them  at 
the  commencement  of  his  biographical  eulogy  on  his  late 
friend4  he  connects  Luther's  strange  excitement  in  the  days 
before  his  entrance  into  religion  with  a  certain  event  in  his 
later  history  at  a  time  when  he  was  engaged  in  public  con- 
troversy. "As  he  himself  related,  and  as  many  are  aware," 
says  Melanchthon,  "  when  considering  attentively  examples 
of  God's  anger,  or  any  notable  accounts  of  His  punishments, 
such  terror  possessed  him  ('tanti  terrores  concutiebant')  as 
almost  to  cause  him  to  give  up  the  ghost."  He  describes 
how,  as  a  full-grown  man,  when  such  fears  overcame  him, 
he  would  actually  writhe  on  his  bed.  He  suffered  from  these 
terrors  (terrores)  either  for  the  first  time,  or  most  severely, 
in  the  year  in  which  he  lost  his  friend  by  death  in  an  accident, 
i.e.  before  his  admission  to  the  monastery.  "  It  was  not 
poverty,"  Melanchthon  continues,  "  but  his  love  of  piety 

1  Dungersheim,     "  Erzeigung    der    Falschheit    des    unchristlichen 
lutherischen   Comments   usw.,"  in   "Aliqua  opuscule,"   p.   15,   cited 
above  on  p.  4. 

2  Job.  Cochlaeus,  "  Commentaria  de  actis  et  scriptis  M.  Lutheri," 
Mogunt.,  1549,  p.  1. 

3  Dungersheim,  ut  supra. 

4  "  Vita  Lutheri,"  p.  5  (see  above,  p.  10,  n.  3.). 


18  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

which  led  him  to  choose  the  religious  life,  and,  while  pur- 
suing his  theological  and  scholastic  studies,  he  drank  with 
glowing  fervour  from  the  springs  of  heavenly  doctrine, 
namely,  the  writings  of  the  prophets  and  apostles  (i.e.  the 
Old  and  New  Testament)  in  order  to  instruct  his  spirit  in  the 
Divine  Will  and  to  nourish  fear  and  love  with  strong  testi- 
mony. Overwhelmed  with  these  pains  and  terrors  ('  dolor es 
et  pavores'),  he  plunged  only  the  more  zealously  into  the 
study  of  the  Bible." 

According  to  Melanchthon's  account,  the  same  old 
Augustinian  who  once  had  directed  Luther's  attention  in 
an  attack  of  faint-heartedness  to  the  Christian's  duty  of 
recalling  the  article  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  also  quoted 
him  a  saying  of  St.  Bernard  :  "  Only  believe  that  thy  sins 
are  forgiven  thee  through  Christ.  That  is  the  testimony 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  gives  in  thy  heart :  '  Thy  sins  are 
forgiven.'  Such  is  the  teaching  of  the  apostle,  that  man  is 
justified  by  faith."1 

Such  words  of  Catholic  faith  and  joyful  trust  in  God 
might  well  have  sufficed  to  reassure  an  obedient  and  humble 
spirit.  Luther  began  to  read  more  and  more  the  mystic 
writings  of  the  saint  of  Clairvaux,  but  as  to  how  far  they 
served  to  bring  him  peace  of  conscience  no  one  can  now  say  ; 
certain  it  is  that,  at  a  later  date,  he  placed  a  foreign  inter- 
pretation upon  the  above-mentioned  text  and  upon  many 
other  similar  sayings  of  St.  Bernard,  which,  taken  in  a 
Catholic  sense,  might  have  been  of  comfort  to  him,  in  order 
to  render  them  favourable  to  the  methods  by  which  he 
proposed  to  make  his  new  teaching  a  source  of  consolation. 
He  accustomed  himself  more  and  more  to  follow  "  his  own 
way,"  as  he  calls  it,  in  mind  and  sentiment.  Though  in 
later  times  he  speaks  often  and  at  length  of  his  spiritual 
trials  in  the  monastery,  we  never  hear  of  his  humbling  him- 
self before  God  with  childlike,  trustful  prayer  in  order  to  find 
a  way  out  of  his  difficulties. 

If  we  consider  the  temptations  of  which  he  speaks,  we 
might  be  tempted  to  think  that  he,  with  his  promising 
disposition  and  proneness  to  extremes,  had  been  singled  out 
in  a  quite  special  manner  by  the  tempter.  During  the  term 
of  novitiate,  writes  Luther  when  more  advanced  in  years, 
the  evil  spirit  of  darkness,  so  he  has  learned,  does  not 
1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  71. 


HIS   TEMPTATIONS  19 

usually  assail  so  bitterly  the  monk  who  is  striving  after  per- 
fection. Satan  generally  tempts  him  but  slightly,  and,  more 
especially  as  regards  temptations  of  the  flesh,  the  novice  is 
left  in  comparative  peace,  "  indeed,  nothing  appears  to  him 
more  agreeable  than  chastity."1  But,  after  that  time, 
so  he  tells  us,  he  himself  had  to  bewail  not  only  fears  and 
doubts,  but  also  numberless  temptations  which  "  his  age 
brought  along  with  it."2  He  felt  himself  at  the  same  time 
troubled  with  doubts  as  to  his  vocation  and  by  "  violent 
movements  of  hatred,  envy,  quarrelsomeness  and  pride."  3 

"  I  was  unable  to  rid  myself  of  the  weight ;  horrible  and 
terrifying  thoughts  ('  horrendce  et  terrificce  cogitationes '), 
stormed  in  upon  me."4  Temptations  to  despair  of  his  salva- 
tion and  to  blaspheme  God  tormented  him  more  especially. 

He  had  often  wondered,  he  says  on  one  occasion  to  his 
father  Hans,  whether  he  was  the  only  man  whom  the  devil 
thus  attacked  and  persecuted,5  and  later  he  comforted  one 
who  was  in  great  anxiety  with  the  words  :  "  When  beset 
with  the  greatest  temptations  I  could  scarcely  retain  my 
bodily  powers,  hardly  keep  my  breath,  and  no  one  was  able 
to  comfort  me.  All  those  to  whom  I  complained  answered 
'  I  know  nothing  about  it,'  so  that  I  used  to  sigh  '  Is  it  I 
alone  who  am  plagued  with  the  spirit  of  sorrow  !  '  "6 

He  thinks  that  he  learned  the  nature  of  these  temptations 
from  the  Psalms,  and  that  he  had  by  experience  made  close 
acquaintance  with  the  verse  of  the  Bible  :  "  Every  night  I 
will  wash  my  bed :  I  will  water  my  couch  with  my  tears  " 
(Ps.  vi.  7).  Satan  with  his  temptations  was  the  murderer 
of  mankind  ;  but,  notwithstanding,  one  must  not  despair. 
Luther  here  speaks  of  visions  granted  him,  and  of  angels 
who  after  ten  years  brought  him  consolation  in  his  solitude  ; 
these  statements  we  shall  examine  later. 

Elsewhere  he  again  recounts  how  Staupitz  encouraged 
him  and  the  manner  in  which  he  interpreted  his  advice 
reveals  a  singular  self-esteem.  Staupitz  had  pointed  out  to 
him  the  interior  trials  endured  by  holy  men,  who  had  been 
purified  by  temptation,  and,  after  having  been  humbled, 

1  "  Opp.  Lat,  var.,"  6,  p.  364  ;   "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  660. 

2  "Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  p.  19,  100. 

3  Ibid. 

4  To  Hier.  Weller  (July  ?),  1530,  "  Briefwechsel,"  8,  p.  160. 

"  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  6,  pp.  240  ;   "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  574. 
6  "  Coll.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  2,  p.  295,  on  Hieronymus  Weller. 


20  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

had  risen  to  be  powerful  instruments  in  God's  hand. 
Perhaps,  said  Staupitz,  God  has  great  designs  also  for  you, 
for  the  greater  good  of  His  Church.  This  well-meant 
encouragement  remained  vividly  impressed  upon  Luther's 
memory,  not  least  because  it  seemed  to  predict  a  great 
future  for  him.  "  And  so  it  has  actually  come  to  pass,"  he 
himself  says  later,  "  I  have  become  a  great  doctor  though 
in  the  time  of  my  temptations  I  could  never  have  believed 
it."1  Speaking  later  of  a  reference  made  by  Staupitz  to  the 
temptations  which  humbled  St.  Paul,  he  says  :  "  I  accepted 
the  words  which  St.  Paul  uses  :  '  A  sting  of  my  flesh  was 
given  me  lest  the  greatness  of  the  revelation  should  exalt 
me  '  (2  Cor.  xii.  7),  wherefore  I  receive  it  as  the  word  and 
voice  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Such  reflections  as  these,  to 
which  Luther  gave  himself  up,  certainly  did  not  tend  to  help 
him  to  rid  himself  completely  of  the  temptations,  and  to 
vanquish  his  melancholy  thoughts  of  predestination.  As  a 
result  of  following  "  his  own  way  "  and  cultivating  his 
morbid  fears,  he  never  succeeded  in  shaking  himself  free 
from  the  thought  of  predestination.  This  will  appear  quite 
clearly  in  his  recently  published  Commentary  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  written  in  1515-16.  In  fact,  the  whole  of  the 
theology  which  he  set  up  against  that  of  the  Catholic  Church 
was  in  some  sense  dominated  by  his  ideas  on  predestination. 

We  must,  however,  pay  him  this  tribute,  that  during  the 
whole  of  his  stay  in  the  Erfurt  monastery  he  strove  to  live  as 
a  true  monk  and  to  keep  the  Rule.  Such  was  the  testimony 
borne  by  an  old  brother  monk,  as  Flacius  Illyricus  relates, 
who  had  lived  with  him  at  Erfurt  and  who  always  remained 
true  to  the  Church. 

Though  such  may  well  have  been  the  case,  we  cannot  all 
the  same  accept  as  reliable  the  accounts,  exaggerated  and 
distorted  as  they  clearly  are,  which,  long  after  his  falling 
away,  he  gives  of  his  extraordinary  holiness  when  in  the 
monastery.  He  there  attributes  to  himself,  from  controversial 
motives,  a  piety  far  above  the  ordinary,  and  speaks  of  the 
tremendous  labours  and  penances  which  he  imposed  upon 
himself  in  his  blindness.  Led  away  by  his  imagination  and  by 
party  animus,  he  exalts  his  one-time  "  holiness  by  works," 
as  he  terms  it,  to  be  the  better  able  to  assure  his  hearers 
• — ostensibly  from  his  own  experience  and  from  the  bitter 
1  To  Hier.  Weller,  see  p.  19,  n.  4. 


HIS   FIRST   LECTURES  21 

disappointment  he  says  he  underwent — that  all  works  of 
the  Papists,  even  those  of  the  most  pious,  holy  and  mortified, 
were  absolutely  worthless  for  procuring  true  peace  for  the 
soul  thirsting  after  salvation,  and  that  the  Catholic  Church 
was  quite  unable  by  her  teaching  to  reconcile  a  soul  with 
God.  History  merely  tells  us  that  he  was  an  observant 
monk  who  kept  the  Rule,  and,  for  that  reason,  enjoyed  the 
confidence  of  his  superiors.1 

Relying  upon  his  ability  and  his  achievements,  Staupitz, 
the  Vicar,  summoned  him  in  the  autumn  of  1508,  to  Witten- 
berg, in  order  that  he  might  there  continue  his  studies  and 
at  the  same  time  commence  his  work  as  a  teacher  on  a 
humble  scale. 

As  Master  of  Philosophy  Luther  gave  lectures  on  the 
Ethics  of  Aristotle  and  probably  also  on  Dialectics,  though, 
as  he  himself  says,  he  would  have  preferred  to  mount  the 
chair  of  Theology,  for  which  he  already  esteemed  himself 
fitted,  and  which,  with  its  higher  tasks,  attracted  him  much 
more  than  philosophy.  In  March,  1509,  he  was  already  the 
recipient  of  a  theological  degree  and  entered  the  Faculty  as 
a  "  Baccalaureus  Biblicus."  This  authorised  him  to  deliver 
lectures  on  the  Holy  Scriptures  at  the  University. 

In  the  same  year,  however,  probably  in  the  late  autumn, 
Luther's  career  at  Wittenberg  was  interrupted  for  a  time 
by  his  being  sent  back  to  Erfurt.  \Vith  regard  to  the  reasons 
for  this  nothing  is  known  with  certainty,  but  a  movement 
which  was  going  forward  in  the  Congregation  may  have  been 
the  cause.  In  the  question  of  the  stricter  observance  which 
had  recently  been  raised  among  the  Augustinians,  and  which 
will  be  treated  of  below,  Luther  had  not  sided  with  the 
Wittenberg  monastery  but  with  his  older  friends  at  Erfurt. 
He  was  opposed  to  certain  administrative  regulations  pro- 
moted by  Staupitz,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  many,  threat- 
ened the  future  discipline  of  the  Order.  At  any  rate,  he  had  to 
return  to  Erfurt  just  as  he  was  about  to  become  "  Sen- 
tentiarius,"  i.e.  to  be  promoted  to  the  office  of  lecturing  on 
the  "Magistcr  Sententiarium."  For  these  lectures,  too,  he 
had  already  qualified  himself.  His  second  stay  at  Erfurt 
and  the  part — so  important  for  the  understanding  of  his 
later  life — which  he  played  in  the  disputes  of  the  Order, 

1  See  below,  volume  vi.,  cap.  xxxvii.,  where  these  questions  are 
treated  more  fully. 


22  LUTHER  THE    MONK 

are  new  data  in  his  history  which  have  as  yet  received  little 
attention. 

He  was  made  very  welcome  by  his  brothers  at  .Erfurt,  at 
once  took  up  his  work  as  "  Sententiarius  "  and,  for  about  a 
year  and  a  half,  held  forth  on  that  celebrated  textbook  of 
theology,  the  Book  of  Sentences. 

He  was  also  employed  in  important  business  for  the  monas- 
tery and  accompanied  Dr.  Nathin  on  a  mission  in  connec- 
tion with  the  question  of  the  statutes  of  the  Congregation 
and  the  above-mentioned  dispute.  Both  went  to  Halle  to 
Adolf  of  Anhalt,  Provost  of  Magdeburg  Cathedral,  for  the 
purpose  of  defending  the  "  observance  in  the  vicariate." 
The  monk  made  an  excellent  impression  on  the  Provost  of 
the  Cathedral.1  The  esteem  which  Luther  enjoyed  while  he 
was  at  Erfurt  exposes  the  futility  of  those  old  fables,  once 
widely  circulated  and  generally  believed,  that  whilst  there 
he  had  entered  into  a  liaison  with  a  girl  and  had  declared 
that  he  intended  to  go  as  far  as  he  could  until  the  times 
permitted  of  his  marrying  in  due  form.2 

Of  Luther's  lectures  at  that  time  some  traces  are  to  be 
found  in  a  book  in  the  Ratsschul-Library  at  Zwickau, 
these  being  the  oldest  specimens  of  his  handwriting  which 
we  possess.  They  were  made  public  in  1893  in  volume  ix. 
of  the  "  Kritische  Gesamtausgabe "  of  Luther's  works 
now  appearing,  and  consist  of  detailed  marginal  notes 
to  the  Sentences  of  the  Lombard  of  which  the  book  in 
question  is  a  printed  copy.3  The  notes  consist  chiefly  of 
subtle  dialectic  explanations  or  corrections  of  Peter  Lom- 
bard and  are  quite  in  the  theological  style  of  the  day.  The 
vanity  and  audacity  of  the  language  used  is  frequently  sur- 
prising; for  instance,  when  the  young  master  takes  upon 
himself  to  speak  of  the  "  buffoonery  "  of  contemporary 
theologians  and  philosophers,  or  of  an  ostensibly  "  almost 
heretical  opinion  "  which  he  discovers  in  Venerable  Duns 
Scotus  ;  still  more  is  this  the  case  when  he  expresses  his 
dislike  of  the  traditional  scholastic  speculation  and  logic, 
alluding  to  the  "  rancid  rules  of  the  logicians,"  to  "  those 
grubs,  the  philosophers,"  to  the  "  dregs  of  philosophy  " 
and  to  that  "  putrid  philosopher  Aristotle." 

1  The  reference  in  Dungersheim,  "Dadelung,"  p.  14  (see  above,  p.  4, 
n.  3)  has  been  discussed  by  N.Paulus  in  the  "Histor.  Jahrbuch,"  1903,  p.  73. 

2  See  volume  iii.,  chapter  xvii.,  6. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  9,  pp.  28-94 


23 

It  is  worthy  of  note  in  connection  with  his  mental  growth 
that,  on  the  very  cover  of  the  book,  he,  most  independently, 
declares  war  on  the  "Sophists,"  though  we  do  not  mean  to 
imply  that  such  a  war  was  not  justifiable  from  many  points 
of  view.  As  a  torch,  however,  for  the  illuminating  of  theo- 
logical truth  he  is  not  unwilling  to  use  philosophy.  Very 
strong,  nay  emphatic,  is  his  appeal  to  the  Word  of  God 
on  a  trivial  and  purely  speculative  question  relating  to  the 
inner  life  of  the  Trinity.  He  says  :  "  Though  many  highly 
esteemed  teachers  assert  this,  yet  the  fact  remains  that  on 
their  side  they  have  not  Holy  Scripture,  but  merely  human 
reasons  :  but  I  say  that  on  my  side  I  have  the  Written  Word 
that  the  soul  is  the  image  of  God,  and  therefore  I  say  with 
the  Apostle  '  Though  an  angel  from  Heaven,  i.e.  a  Doctor  of 
the  Church,  preach  to  you  otherwise,  let  him  be  anathema.'  " 

In  these  glosses  we  may,  however,  seek  in  vain  for  any 
trace,  even  the  faintest,  of  Luther's  future  teaching.  The 
young  theologian  still  maintains  the  Church's  standpoint, 
particularly  with  regard  to  the  doctrines  which  he  was 
afterwards  to  call  into  question. 

He  still  speaks  correctly  of  "  faith  which  works  through 
charity  and  by  which  we  are  justified."  Equally  blameless 
are  his  statements  regarding  concupiscence  in  fallen  man 
and  the  exercise  of  free  will  in  the  choice  of  good  under  the 
influence  of  Divine  Grace.  Once,  it  is  true,  he  casually 
speaks  of  Christ  as  "  our  righteousness  and  sanctification," 
but,  in  spite  of  the  weight  which  has  been  laid  on  this  ex- 
pression, it  is  in  no  wise  remarkable,  and  merely  voices 
the  Catholic  view  of  St.  Augustine,  or  better  still,  of  St. 
Paul.  To  Romans  i.  16  f.,  to  which  he  was  later  to  attach 
so  much  importance  in  his  new  system,  he  refers  once,  inter- 
preting it  correctly  and  agreeably  with  the  Glossa  ordinaria  ; 
clearly  enough  it  had  not  yet  begun  to  interest  him  and 
his  harmless  words  afford  no  proof  of  the  statement  which 
has  been  made,  that  already  at  the  time  he  wrote  "  the 
birth-hour  of  the  reformation  had  rung." 

That  Luther  also  studied  at  that  time  some  of  the  writings 
of  St.  Augustine  we  see  from  three  old  volumes  of  the  works 
of  this  Father  in  the  Zwickau  Library,  which  contain  notes 
made  in  Luther's  handwriting  on  the  De  Trinitate,  on  the 
De  Civitate  Dei,  and  other  similar  writings.  These  notes, 
made  about  the  same  time,  are  correct  in  their  doctrine. 


24  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

According  to  Melanchthon,  already  at  Erfurt  he  had  begun 
a  "  very  thorough  study  "  of  the  African  Father  of  the 
Church. 

In  the  latter  notes,  which  were  also  published  in  the 
Weimar  edition  of  Luther's  works,1  he  once  flies  into  a 
violent  fit  of  indignation  with  the  celebrated  Wimpfeling, 
who  was  mixed  up  in  a  literary  dispute  with  the  Augustinian 
Order.  He  calls  the  worthy  man  "  a  garrulous  barker  and 
an  envious  critic  of  the  fame  of  the  Augustinians,  who  had 
lost  his  reason  through  obstinacy  and  hate,  and  who  re- 
quires a  cut  of  the  knife  to  open  his  mole's  eyes  "  ;  he, 
"with  his  brazen  front,  should  be  ashamed  of  himself."2 
Glibness  of  tcngue,  combined  with  intelligence  and  fancy, 
and,  in  addition  to  unusual  talents,  great  perseverance  in 
study,  these  were  the  qualities  which  many  admired  in  the 
new  teacher.  Whoever  had  to  dispute  with  so  sharp  and 
fiery  an  opponent,  was  sure  to  get  the  worst  of  the  encounter. 
The  fame  of  the  new  teacher  soon  spread  throughout  the 
Augustinian  province,  but  his  originality  and  want  of 
restraint  naturally  raised  him  up  some  enemies. 

Alongside  of  his  readiness  in  controversy  which  some 
admired,  many  remarked  in  him  quarrelsomeness  and  dis- 
putatiousness.  He  never  learnt  how  to  live  "  at  peace  " 
with  his  brothers,3  as  some  of  the  old  monks  afterwards 
told  the  Humanist  Cochlacus.  His  Catholic  pupil  Johann 
Oldecop,  says  of  his  leaving  Erfurt  for  Wittenberg,  that  the 
separation  was  not  altogether  displeasing  to  the  Augustinians 
of  Erfurt,  because  Luther  was  always  desirous  of  coming 
off  victor  in  differences  of  opinion,  and  liked  to  stir  up 
strife.4  Hieronymus  Dungersheim,  a  subsequent  Catholic 
opponent  who  watched  him  very  narrowly,  writes  that  he 
"  had  always  been  a  quarrelsome  man  in  his  ways  and 
habits,"  and  that  he  had  acquired  that  reputation  even 
before  ever  he  came  to  the  monastery.5  Dungersheim 
questioned  those  who  had  known  him  as  a  secular  student 
at  Erfurt.  The  above  statements  come,  it  is  true,  from  the 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  2-14.  2  Ibid.,  p.  12. 

3  "  Audivi    crebrius,    nunquam    satis    pacifice    vixisse    eum."      So 
Cochlseus  (see  above,  p.  17,  n.  2)  in  1524. 

4  J.  Oldecop,  "  Chronik,"  ed.  K.  Euling,  1891,  p.  17. 

5  Dungersheim,    "  Wore   Widerlegung   des   falschen   Buchleins   M. 
Lutheri  von  beyder  Gestald  des  hochwurdigsten   Sacraments  "    (see 
above,  p.  4,  n.  3),  p.  31'. 


CONTACT   WITH   HITS  25 

camp  of  his  adversaries,  but  they  are  not  only  uncontra- 
dicted  by  any  further  testimony,  but  entirely  agree  with 
other  data  regarding  his  character. 

Luther,  in  his  own  account  of  himself  which  he  gave 
later,  tells  -us  that  he  was  then  and  during  the  first  part  of 
his  career  as  a  monk,  so  full  of  zeal  for  the  truth  handed 
down  by  the  Church  that  he  would  have  given  over  to 
death  any  denier  of  the  same,  and  have  been  ready  to  carry 
the  wood  for  burning  him  at  the  stake.  He  also  says  in  his 
queer,  exaggerated  fashion,  that  in  those  days  he  wor- 
shipped the  Pope.  At  the  same  time  he  announces  that 
his  study  of  the  Bible  at  Erfurt  had  already  shown  him 
many  errors  in  the  Papist  Church,  but  that  he  had  sought 
to  soothe  his  conscience  with  the  question  :  "  Art  thou  the 
only  wise  man  ?  "  though  by  so  doing  he  had  retarded  his 
understanding  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.1  He  also  asserts 
later  that  his  father's  words  spoken  at  the  banquet  which 
followed  his  first  Mass,  viz.  that  his  religious  vocation  was 
probably  a  delusion,  had  pierced  ever  deeper  into  his  mind 
and  appeared  to  him  more  and  more  true.  Yet  he  likewise 
tells  us  elsewhere  of  his  persevering  zeal  in  his  profession, 
and  of  his  excessive  fastings  and  disciplines. 

It  is  hard  to  find  the  real  clue  in  this  tangle  of  later  state- 
ments, all  of  them  influenced  by  polemical  considerations. 

He  says  quite  seriously,  and  this  may  very  well  be  true, 
that  what  he  was  wont  to  hear  at  times  outside  the  monastery 
from  unbelieving  "  grammarians,"  i.e.  humanists,  regarding 
the  great  difference  between  the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture 
and  that  of  the  existing  Church,  made  a  deep  impression 
on  him.2  He  had,  however,  calmed  himself,  so  he  says,  with 
the  thought  that  this  was  other  people's  business.  In  the 
monastic  library  he  once  came  across  some  sermons  of 
John  Hus.  Their  contents  appeared  to  him  excellent, 
nevertheless,  so  he  writes,  from  aversion  for  the  author's 
name,  he  laid  aside  the  book  without  reading  any  further, 
though  not  without  surprise  that  such  a  man  should  have 
written  in  many  ways  so  well  and  so  correctly.  Johann 
Grefenstein,  his  master  at  Erfurt,  had  once  let  fall  the 

1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  77. 

2  Ericeus,  "  Sylvula  sententiarum,"  p.  142.     Cp.  J.  K.  Seidemann, 
"  Luthers  alteste  Vorlesungen  iiber  die  Psalmen,"   1,  Dresden,   1876, 
p.  xvii.     "  Ego  adolescens  audivi  doctos  viros  et  bonos  grammaticoe,"  etc. 


26  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

remark  in  his  presence  that  Hus  had  been  put  to  death 
without  any  previous  attempt  being  made  to  instruct  or 
convert  him. 

At  that  time,  Hus  failed  to  make  any  impression  on 
him.  Doubts,  however,  assaulted  him  in  the  shape  of 
temptations.  Those  he  repulsed,  well  aware  of  the  danger. 
In  June,  1521,  writing  at  the  Wartburg,  he  says  that  more 
than  ten  years  before,  much  that  was  taught  by  Popes, 
Councils  and  Universities  had  appeared  to  him  absurd  and 
in  contradiction  with  Christ,  but  that  he  had  put  a  bridle 
on  his  thoughts  in  accordance  with  the  Proverb  of  Solomon  : 
"  Lean  not  upon  thy  own  prudence."1  Certain  it  is  that 
his  clear  mind  must  early  have  perceived  that  the  Church 
of  that  day  fell  far  short  of  the  ideal,  and  it  is  possible  that 
even  in  those  early  years,  such  a  perception  may  have 
awakened  in  him  doubts  and  discontent  and  have  led  him 
to  take  a  too  gloomy  view  of  the  state  of  the  Church. 

In  any  case,  Luther's  own  testimony  as  given  above 
leads  us  to  suspect  the  presence  in  his  mind  at  an  early 
date  of  a  deep-seated  dissatisfaction  which  foreboded  ill  to 
the  monk's  future  fidelity  to  the  Church.2 

A  strong  moral  foundation  would  have  been  necessary  to 
save  a  mind  so  singularly  constituted  from  wavering,  and  if 
we  may  believe  the  statement  of  his  contemporary,  Hierony- 
mus  Dungersheim  of  Leipzig,  this  was  just  what  Luther  had 
always  lacked.  Dungersheim,  in  a  pamphlet  against  Luther 
the  heretic,  harks  back  to  the  years  he  spent  at  Erfurt  as  a 
secular  student  and  accuses  him  of  evil  habits,  probably 
contracted  then,  but  the  after  effects  of  which  made  them- 
selves felt  when  he  had  entered  into  religion  and  caused  him 
to  rebel  against  his  profession.  If  Luther,  so  he  says,  was 
now  persuaded  that  no  religious  could  keep  the  vow  of 
chastity,  in  his  case  the  inability  could  only  be  due  to  a 
certain  "  former  bad  habit,"  of  which  stories  were  told, 
and  to  his  neglect  of  prayer.3  In  another  writing  the  same 

1  In  the  tract  "  Rationis  Latomianse  confutatio,"  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.," 
5,  p.  400  ;   Weim.  ed.,  8,  p.  45. 

2  The  above  description  of  Luther's  life  in  the  monastery,  starting 
from   the   strange   circumstances   of   his   entrance,   has   intentionally 
been  left  incomplete.    Below,  in  volume  vi.,  chapter  xxxvii.,  the  whole 
development  of  his  character  and  disposition  as  it  appears  more  clearly 
in  the  course  of  his  history,  and  at  the  same  time  his  own  later  views 
and  his  manner  of  depicting  his  life  in  religion,  are  reverted  to  in  detail. 

3  "  Erzeigung  der  Falschheit,"  p.  6. 


"THE   SINS   OF   MY   YOUTH"         27 

opponent  accuses  him  openly  of  having  indulged  in  the 
grossest  vice  during  his  academic  years,  and  mentions  as 
his  informant  one  of  the  comrades  who  had,  later  on, 
accompanied  Luther  to  the  gates  of  the  monastery.1  He 
says  nothing,  perhaps,  indeed,  he  knew  nothing  more 
definite,  and  with  regard  to  Luther's  life  in  religion,  he  is 
unable  to  adduce  anything  to  his  discredit. 

But  yet  another  of  Luther's  later  adversaries  has  strong 
words  for  our  hero's  early  life.  His  testimony,  which  has 
not  so  far  been  dealt  with,  must  be  treated  of  here  because 
such  charges,  if  well  founded,  doubtless  contribute  much 
to  the  psychological  explanation  of  the  processes  going  for- 
ward in  Luther.  This  testimony  is  given  by  Hieronymus 
Emser  of  Dresden,  who,  it  is  true,  was  himself  by  no  means 
spotless,  and  who,  on  that  account,  was  roundly  reprimanded 
by  the  man  he  had  attacked.  In  his  rejoinder  to  Luther,  a 
pamphlet  published  in  1520,  and  the  only  one  preserved, 
he  says  :  "  Was  it  necessary  on  account  of  my  letter  that 
you  should  hold  up  to  public  execration  my  former  deviations 
which  are  indeed,  for  the  most  part,  mere  inventions  ? 
What  do  you  think  has  come  to  my  ears  concerning  your 
own  criminal  deeds  ('  flagitia  ')  ?  "  He  will  be  silent  about 
them,  he  says,  because  he  does  not  wish  to  return  evil  for 
evil,  but  he  continues  :  "  That  you  also  fell,  I  must  attribute 
to  the  same  cause  which  brought  about  my  own  fall,  namely, 
the  want  of  public  discipline  in  our  days,  so  that  young  men 
live  as  they  please  without  fear  of  punishment  and  do  just 
what  they  like."2  We  must  remember  that  at  Erfurt 
Emser  and  Luther  had  stood  in  the  relation  of  teacher  and 
disciple.  His  words,  like  those  of  Dungersheim  written  from 
Leipzig,  voice  the  opinion  on  Luther  later  on  current  in 
the  hostile  University  circles  of  Erfurt. 

When  Luther  in  his  later  years  speaks  of  the  "  sins  of 
his  youth,"  this,  in  his  grotesquely  anti-catholic  vocabulary, 
means  the  good  works  of  his  monastic  life,  even  the  celebra- 
tion of  Holy  Mass.  Elsewhere,  however,  at  the  end  of  his 
tract  on  the  Last  Supper  (1528), 3  and  once  in  the  Table-Talk,4 

1  "  Dadelung  des  Bekenntnus,"  p.  15',  16. 

2  "  A  venatione  Luteriana  ^Egocerotis  assertio,"  s.l.e.a.,  E  5'. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  30,  p.  372  :    "  Although  I  have  been  a  great, 
grievous,    shameful   sinner   and   have   wasted   and   spent   my   youth 
damnably,"  yet  his  greatest  sins  were  that  he  had  been  a  monk  and 
had  said  Mass.        4  "  Tischreden  "  (Veit  Dietrich),  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  61. 


28  LUTHER  THE   MONK 

speaking  of  the  sins  of  his  youth,  he  distinguishes  between 
the  Catholic  works  above  referred  to  and  other  faults  of 
which  he  accuses  himself  in  the  same  general  terms. 

In  the  young  Augustinian's  Erfurt  days  he  was  pre- 
vented by  the  Rule  from  cultivating  any  intimate  and  dis- 
tracting friendship  with  persons  in  the  world.  We  only 
know  that  he,  and  likewise  his  brother  monk  Johann  Lang, 
had  some  friendly  intercourse  with  the  Humanist  Pctreius 
(Peter  Eberbach),  who  not  long  after,  in  a  letter  dated 
May  8,  1512,  greets  Lang — then  already  with  Luther  at 
Wittenberg- — in  these  words  :  "  S ancle  Lange  ct  Sancte 
Marline  orate  pro  me."  Mutianus,  the  Gotha  canon  and 
chief  of  the  Humanists,  who  was  very  unorthodox  in  his 
views,  in  a  letter  to  Lang  of  the  beginning  of  May,  1515, 
seems  to  remember  Luther,  for  he  sends  greetings  to  the 
"  pious  Dr.  Martin." 

His  intercourse  with  the  Humanists  led  Luther  to  make 
use  of  philology  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
He  thus  entered  upon  a  useful,  we  may  even  say  indispens- 
able, course,  in  which  he  might  have  done  great  service. 
At  Erfurt  he  continued  constantly  to  study  his  copy  of  the 
Bible,  which  had  become  an  inseparable  companion.  "  As 
no  one  in  the  monastery  read  the  Bible  "  (at  any  rate  not  with 
his  zeal)  he  was  able  to  flatter  himself  with  being  first  in 
the  house  in  the  matter  of  biblical  knowledge  ;  indeed  in  this 
field  he  was  probably  the  greatest  expert  in  the  whole 
Congregation. 

In  addition  to  this,  he  began  to  turn  his  busy  mind  to 
the  study  of  Hebrew,  and  contrived  to  provide  himself  with 
a  dictionary,  which  at  that  time  was  considered  a  treasure. 
Lang,  with  his  humanistic  culture,  was  able  to  assist  him 
with  the  Greek. 

Meanwhile  the  dispute  in  the  Order  with  regard  to  the 
observance  had  reached  a  point  when  it  seemed  right  to 
the  party  to  which  Luther  belonged  to  seek  the  intervention 
of  Rome  in  their  favour,  or  to  anticipate  an  appeal  on  the 
part  of  their  opponents.  The  choice  of  seven  houses  "  of 
the  observance  "  resulted  in  Luther  being  chosen  as  the 
delegate  to  represent  them  in  Rome.  So  little  opposed  to 
the  Church  was  Luther's  theology  and  Bible  interpretation 
in  his  Erfurt  days,  and  so  considerable  was  the  number  of 
brethren,  even  in  other  Observantine  houses  who  held  him 


THE   AUGUSTINIANS  29 

to  be  a  faithful  monk,  that  they  deemed  him  best  suited  for 
so  difficult  a  mission.  What  Cochlseus,  according  to  in- 
formation drawn  from  Augustinian  sources,  relates  later 
sounds,  however,  quite  reasonable,  viz.  that  he  was  selected 
on  account  of  his  "  cleverness  and  his  forceful  spirit  of  con- 
tradiction," which  promised  a  complete  victory  over  the 
other  faction.1 

Luther's  journey  to  Rome,  according  to  Oldecop,  was 
undertaken  from  Erfurt. 

3.  The  Journey  to  Rome 

The  Saxon,  or  more  correctly  German,  Congregation  of 
Augustinians,  at  the  time  of  Luther's  journey  to  Rome, 
had  reached  a  crisis  in  its  history. 

Founded  on  the  old  Order  of  Hermits  of  St.  Augustine, 
f  by  the  pious  and  zealous  Andreas  Proles  (1503),  and  pro- 
vided by  him  with  excellent  statutes  intended  to  promote  a 
refornvof  discipline,  the  Congregation  had,  since  its  founda- 
tion, been  withdrawn  from  the  control  of  the  Provincial  of 
the  unreformed  Augustinian  Province  of  Saxony  in  order 
the  better  to  preserve  its  stricter  observance.2  It  stood 
directly  under  the  General  of  the  Order  at  Rome,  whose 
German  representative  was  a  Vicar-General- — in  Luther's 
time,  Staupitz.  He  was  simply  styled  Vicar,  or  sometimes 
Provincial.  The  monasteries  under  him  numbered  about 
thirty,  and  were  distributed  throughout  several  so-called 
districts,  each  headed  by  a  Rural  Vicar. 

Staupitz's  aim  was  to  bring  about  a  reunion  of  the  German 
Congregation  with  the  numerous  non-observant  monasteries 
in  Germany,  an  amalgamation  which  would  probably  have 
led  indirectly  to  his  becoming  the  head  of  all  these  com- 
munities. He  had  already  (Sept.  30,  1510)  published  a 
document  of  Carvajal  the  Papal  Legate  approving  such 
a  union,  and,  by  virtue  of  the  same,  begun  to  style  himself 
Provincial  of  Thuringia  and  Saxony.  His  efforts  were, 
however,  met  by  decided  opposition  within  the  Congregation. 
Certain  houses  which  were  in  favour  of  the  old  state  of 
things  and  feared  that  union  would  lead  to  a  relaxation  of 
discipline,  vehemently  opposed  Staupitz  and  his  plans.  To 

1  "  Commentaria,"  etc.,  p.  1.  "Acer  ingenio  et  ad  contradicendum 
audax  et  vehemens." 

1  Kolde,  "  Die  deutsche  Augustinerkongregation,"  p.  96  f. 


30  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

this  party  belonged  also  the  Erfurt  monastery,  and  Luther 
himself  took  an  active  part  in  the  position  assumed  by  his 
house.  The  object  of  his  visit  to  Halle  with  Dr.  Nathin  to 
see  Prince  Adolf  of  Anhalt,  the  Cathedral  Provost,  had  been 
to  obtain  a  "  petition  "  in  favour  of  the  *'  observance." 
The  opposition  became  acute  when  the  Bull  above  referred 
to  was  published  by  Staupitz,  and  we  may  consider  the 
protest  of  the  seven  Observantine  monasteries  against  the 
Bull  as  the  direct  cause  of  Luther's  despatch  to  Rome. 

The  monk,  then  seven-and-twenty  years  of  age,  with  his 
written  authority  to  act  as  procurator  in  the  case  ("  litis 
procurator "  is  what  Cochlseus,  who  knew  something  of 
these  matters,  styles  him),  set  out  forthwith  on  his  journey. 
It  was  in  the  autumn  1510,1  and  Luther  was  then  lecturing 
on  the  third  book  of  the  Sentences.  His  absence  lasted 
four  or  five  months,  i.e.  until  the  spring  1511,  when  we 
again  find  him  at  Erfurt.  Luther,  and  those  who  felt  with 
him,  found  no  difficulty  in  reconciling  their  efforts  for  the 
preservation  of  the  observance  against  the  will  of  Staupitz, 
with  due  submission  to  him  as  their  Superior. 

Another  monk  of  the  Order  accompanied  Luther  to  the 
capital  of  Christendom  as  the  Rule  enjoined  in  the  case  of 
journeys.  The  joy  at  such  an  opportunity  of  seeing  the 
Eternal  City,  of  quenching  his  ardent  thirst  for  knowledge 
by  the  acquisition  of  new  experiences  and  of  gaining  the 
graces  attached  to  so  holy  a  pilgrimage,  may  well  have 
hurried  his  steps  during  the  wearisome  journey,  which  in 
those  days  had  to  be  undertaken  on  foot.  He  had  even, 
according  to  a  later  statement,  made  the  resolution  to 
cleanse  his  conscience- — so  frequently  tortured  by  fears — 
by  a  general  confession,  indeed  he  once  says  that  this  was  his 
main  object,  passing  over  the  real  reason. 

With  regard  to  the  effect  of  the  journey  on  the  question 
concerning  the  Order,  it  is  clear  it  was  a  failure ;  the 
dispute  was  finally  settled  only  in  May,  1512,  at  the 
Cologne  Chapter  ;  Staupitz  was  unable  to  carry  out  his 
plan  and  eventually  gave  it  up.  The  dispute  between 

1  For  the  date  and  cause,  see  N.  Paulus  in  the  "  Histor.  Jahrbuch," 
1891,  68  f.,  314  f.  ;  1901,  110  ff.  ;  1903,  72  ff.  Also  "  Histor.-polit. 
Blatter,"  142,  1908,  738-52.  The  year  1510-11,  as  against  that  given 
by  Kostlin-Kawerau,  viz.  1511-12,  is  now  accepted  by  Kroker  in  his 
edition  of  the  "  Tischreden  der  Mathesischen  Sammlung,"  p.  417,  and 
by  Kawerau  in  the  "  Lutherkalender,"  1910,  p.  97. 


OBSERVANTINES  AND  CONVENTUALS    31 

"  Observants  "  and  "  non-Observants  "  thus  started,  as  we 
may  gather  from  statements  made  by  Luther  to  which  we 
refer  later,  far  from  being  at  an  end  became  more  and  more 
acute.  It  appears  to  have  done  untold  harm  to  the  Con- 
gregation and  to  have  largely  contributed  to  its  fall. 

What  effect  had  the  visit  to  Italy  and  Rome  upon  the 
development  of  the  young  monk  ? 

Thousands  have  been  cheered  in  spirit  by  the  visit  to  the 
tombs  of  the  Apostles  ;  prayer  at  the  holy  places  of  Rome, 
the  immediate  proximity  of  the  Vicar  of  Christ  and  of  the 
world-embracing  government  of  the  Church  made  them  feel 
what  they  had  never  felt  before,  the  pulse-beat  of  the  heart 
of  Christendom,  and  they  returned  full  of  enthusiasm, 
strengthened  and  inspirited,  and  with  the  desire  of  working 
for  souls  in  accordance  with  the  mind  of  the  Church. 

With  Luther  this  was  not  the  case. 

He  was  much  less  impressed  by  the  Rome  of  the  Saints 
than  by  the  corruption  then  rampant  in  ecclesiastical  circles. 

On  first  perceiving  Rome  from  the  heights  of  Monte 
Mario,  he  devoutly  greeted  the  city,  as  all  pilgrims  were 
wont  to  do,  overjoyed  at  having  reached  the  goal  of  their 
long  pilgrimage.1  After  that,  he  untiringly  occupied  him- 
self, so  far  as  his  chief  business  permitted,  in  seeing  all  that 
Rome  had  to  show.  He  assures  us  that  he  believed  everything 
that  was  told  him  of  the  real  or  legendary  reminiscences  of 
the  holy  places  both  above  and  under  ground.  He  does 
not,  however,  appear  to  have  been  very  careful  in  his  choice 
of  guides  and  acquaintances,  for  the  anecdotes  concerning 
the  condition  of  things  at  Rome  which  he  brought  back 
with  him  to  his  own  country  were,  if  not  untrue,  at  least 
exceedingly  spiteful.  The  Augustinians  whom  he  there 
met  had  not  the  spirit  of  the  reform  inaugurated  by  Proles. 
Their  southern  freedom  and  lack  of  restraint  found  all  too 
strong  an  echo  in  Luther's  character.  The  general  confession 
he  had  projected  was  probably  never  made,2  for,  a  she  asserts 
later,  he  had  not  found  among  the  clergy  a  single  suitable, 
worthy  man.  During  his  distracting  stay  in  the  Eternal 
City  he  said  Mass,  so  he  tells  us,  perhaps  once,  perhaps  ten 
times,  i.e.  occasionally,  not  regularly.3  He  was  greatly 

1  "Werke,"   Erl.   ed.   62,  p.  438.   "Coll.,"   ed.  Bindseil,   1,    165; 
"  Tischreden,"  ed.  Forstemann,  4,  687. 

2  "Coll.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  169,  and  n.  33. 

3  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.  40,  p.  284. 


32  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

scandalised  at  much  he  heard  and  saw,  partly  owing  to  his 
looking  at  things  with  the  critical  eye  of  a  northerner,  partly 
owing  to  the  really  existing  moral  disorders. 

The  Rome  of  that  day  was  the  Rome  of  Julius  II,  the 
then  Pope,  and  of  his  predecessor  Alexander  VI ;  it  was 
the  Rome  of  the  Popes  of  the  height  of  the  Renaissance, 
glorified  by  art,  but  inwardly  deeply  debased.  The  capital 
of  Christendom,  under  the  influence  of  the  frivolity 
which  had  seized  the  occupants  of  the  Papal  throne  and 
invaded  the  ranks  of  the  higher  clergy,  had  proved  false 
to  her  dignity  and  forgetful  of  the  fact  that  the  eyes  of  the 
Faithful  who  visited  Rome  from  every  quarter  of  the  globe 
were  jealously  fixed  upon  her  in  their  anxiety  lest  the  godless 
spirit  of  the  world  should  poison  the  very  heart  of  the 
Church. 

Instead  of  being  edified  by  the  good  which  he  undoubtedly 
encountered  and  by  the  great  ideal  of  the  Church  which 
no  shadow  can  ever  darken,  Luther,  with  his  critically 
disposed  mind,  proved  all  too  receptive  to  the  contrary 
impressions  and  allowed  himself  to  be  unduly  influenced 
by  the  dark  side  of  things,  i.e.  the  corruption  of  morals. 
Subsequently,  in  his  public  controversies  and  private  Table- 
Talk,  he  tells  quite  a  number  of  disreputable  tales,1  which, 
whether  based  on  fact  or  not,  were  all  too  favourable  to  his 
anti-Roman  tendencies.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  saying,  in 
his  usual  tone,  that  whoever  looked  about  him  a  little  in 
Rome,  would  find  abominations  compared  to  which  those  of 
Sodom  were  mere  child's  play.  He  declares  that  he  heard 
from  the  mouth  of  Papal  courtiers  the  statement :  "It 
cannot  go  on  much  longer,  it  must  break  up."  In  the  com- 
pany in  which  he  mixed  he  heard  these  words  let  fall :  "  If 
there  be  a  Hell,  then  Rome  is  built  over  it."  He  says  that  he 
had  heard  it  said  of  one,  who  expressed  his  grief  at  such  a 
state  of  things,  that  he  was  a  "  buon  cristiano,"  which  meant 
much  the  same  as  a  good-natured  simpleton.  In  his  prone- 
ness  to  accept  evil  tales  he  believed,  at  least  so  he  asserts 
later,  the  statement  made  in  his  presence,  that  many  priests 
were  in  the  habit  of  repeating  jokes  at  Mass  in  place  of  the 
words  of  consecration.  He  relates  that  he  even  questioned 
whether  the  bishops  and  priests  at  Rome,  the  prelates  of 
the  Curia,  aye,  the  Pope  himself,  had  any  Christian  belief 
1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  99  f. 


THE   ROME   JOURNEY  33 

left.  It  is  not  worth  while  to  go  into  the  details  of  the 
scandals  he  records,  because,  as  Hausrath  justly  remarks, 
"it  is  questionable  how  much  weight  is  due  to  statements 
which,  in  part,  date  from  the  later  years  of  his  life,  when  he 
had  so  completely  altered."1 

In  his  accounts  the  share  which  he  himself  actually  took 
in  the  pious  pilgrim-exercises  of  the  time  is  kept  very  much 
in  the  background. 

He  came  to  the  so-called  Scala  Santa  at  the  Lateran,  and 
saw  the  Faithful,  from  motives  of  penance,  ascending  the 
holy  steps  on  their  knees.  He  turned  away  from  this  touch- 
ing popular  veneration  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Redeemer,  and 
preferred  not  to  follow  the  example  of  the  other  pilgrims.2 
An  account  given  by  his  son  Paul  in  1582  says  that  he 
then  quoted  the  Bible  verse  :  "  The  just  man  liveth  by 
faith."  If  it  be  a  fact  that  he  made  use  of  these  words 
which  were  to  assume  so  great  importance  and  to  be  so 
sadly  misinterpreted  in  his  subsequent  theology,  it  was 
certainly  not  in  their  later  sense.  In  reality  we  have  here 
in  all  probability  an  instance  of  a  later  opinion  being 
gratuitously  anticipated,  for  Luther  himself  declares  that 
he  discovered  his  gospel  only  after  he  had  taken  his  Doctor's 
degree,  and  this  we  shall  show  abundantly  further  on. 
Older  Protestant  writers  have  frequently  represented  the 
scene  at  the  steps  of  the  Lateran  in  unhistorical  colours 
owing  to  their  desire  to  furnish  a  graphic  historical  beginning 
of  the  change  in  Luther's  mind.  Mylius  of  Jena  was  one  of 
the  first  to  do  this.2  Mylius,  in  1595,  quite  falsely  asserts 
that  Luther  had  already  commented  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  previous  to  his  journey  to  Rome,  and  adds  that 
he  had  already  then  noted  the  later  interpretation  of  the 
Bible  text  in  question.  It  is  true  that  his  son  Paul,  where 
he  speaks  of  Luther's  exclamation  as  having  been  com- 
municated to  him  by  his  father,  expressly  states  that  "  he 
had  then,  through  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth  of  the  holy  gospel."  But  Kostlin's  Biography 
of  Luther  rightly  denies  this,  and  describes  it  as  an  "ex- 
aggeration "3- — "  error  "  would  have  been  better- — for  the 

1  "  Luthers  Romfahrt,"  p.  79.        2  See,  however,  vol.  vi.,  xlii,  2. 

3  Georgius  Mylius,  "  In  Epistolam  divi  Pauli  ad  Romanes,"  etc., 
lenae,   1595.     "  Prsefatio,"  fol.  2'.     Cp.  Theod.  Elze,  "  Luthers  Reise 
nach  Rom,"  Berlin,  1899,  pp.  3,  45,  80. 

4  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  749  f. 

I.— D 


34  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

assumption  to  which  Luther's  friends  still  cling  with  such 
affection,  namely,  that  from  the  very  commencement  of  his 
journey  to  Rome  he  had  been  "  haunted  by  the  Bible  text 
concerning  justification  by  faith,"  at  a  time  "  when  he 
still  was  striving  to  serve  God  by  his  own  works,"  must  be 
struck  out  of  history  as  a  mere  fiction.1 

At  Rome  Luther's  conviction  of  the  authority  of  the 
Holy  See  was  in  no  wise  shaken,  in  spite  of  what  some  people 
have  thought.  All  the  scandals  had  not  been  able  to  achieve 
this.  As  late  as  1516  he  was  still  preaching  in  entire  accord- 
ance with  the  traditional  doctrine  of  the  Church  on  the 
power  of  the  Papacy,  and  it  is  worth  while  to  quote  his 
words  in  order  to  show  the  Catholic  thoughts  which  engaged 
him  while  wandering  through  the  streets  of  Rome.  "  If 
Christ  had  not  entrusted  all  power  to  one  man,  the  Church 
would  not  have  been  perfect  because  there  would  have 
been  no  order  and  each  one  would  have  been  able  to  say  he 
was  led  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is  what  the  heretics  did, 
each  one  setting  up  his  own  principle.  In  this  way  as  many 
Churches  arose  as  there  were  heads.  Christ  therefore  wills, 
in  order  that  all  may  be  assembled  in  one  unity,  that  His 
Power  be  exercised  by  one  man  to  whom  also  He  commits 
it.  He  has,  however,  made  this  Power  so  strong  that 
He  looses  all  the  powers  of  Hell  (without  injury)  against  it. 
He  says  :  '  The  gates  of  Hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it,' 
as  though  He  said  :  '  They  will  fight  against  it  but  never 
overcome  it,'  so  that  in  this  way  it  is  made  manifest  that 
this  power  is  in  reality  from  God  and  not  from  man.  Where- 
fore whoever  breaks  away  from  this  unity  and  order  of  the 
Power,  let  him  not  boast  of  great  enlightenment  and  won- 
derful works,  as  our  Picards  and  other  heretics  do, '  for  much 
better  is  obedience  than  the  victims  of  fools  who  know  not 

1  On  his  own  account  Paul  was  only  a  boy  of  eleven  when  he  heard 
this  statement  from  his  father  ;  it  is  therefore  very  doubtful  whether 
he  understood  and  remembered  it  correctly.  Luther  would  surely 
have  returned  to  the  subject  more  frequently  had  it  really  played  so 
great  a  part  in  his  development,  especially  as  he  speaks  so  often  of  his 
journey  to  Rome.  O.  Scheel  in  his  recent  thesis  on  the  development  of 
Luther  down  to  the  time  of  the  conclusion  of  the  lectures  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  ("  Schriften  des  Vereins  fiir  Reformationsgesch,  Nr. 
100,  Jubilaumsschrift,"  1910,  pp.  61-230),  quite  correctly  says:  "It  is 
possible  that  his  son,  knowing  of  what  importance  Romans  i.  17  had 
become  for  Luther,  may  at  a  later  date  have  combined  these  words 
with  the  Roman  incident."  In  any  case,  the  objections  with  regard  to 
this  incident  are  so  great  that  little  can  be  made  out  of  it. 


THE   ROME   JOURNEY  35 

what  evil  they  do  '  (Eccles.  iv.  17).  "*  That,  when  in  Rome, 
he  was  still  full  of  reverence  for  the  Pope,  Luther  shows  in 
his  Table-Talk,  though  his  language  on  this  occasion  can 
only  be  described  as  filthy.2 

His  ideas  with  regard  to  the  Church's  means  of  Grace,  the 
Mass,  Indulgences  and  Prayer  had  not,  at  the  time  of  his 
return  to  Germany,  undergone  any  theoretical  change, 
though  it  is  highly  probable  that  his  practical  observance  of 
the  Church's  law  suffered  considerably.  The  fact  is,  his 
character  was  not  yet  sufficiently  formed  when  he  started 
on  his  journey ;  he  was,  as  Oldecop  says,  "  a  wild  young 
fellow."3 

Luther  later  on  relates  it  as  a  joke,  that,  when  at  Rome, 
he  had  been  so  zealous  in  gaining  Indulgences  that  he  had 
wished  his  parents  were  already  dead  so  that  he  might 
apply  to  their  souls  the  great  Indulgences  obtainable  there.4 
Of  the  Masses  which  he  celebrated  in  the  Holy  City  he 
assures  us- — again  more  by  way  of  a  joke  than  as  an  exact 
statement  of  fact' — that  he  said  them  so  piously  and  slowly 
that  three,  or  even  six,  Italian  priests  or  monks  had  finished 
all  their  Masses  in  succession  before  he  had  come  to  the  end 
of  one.  He  even  declares  that  in  Rome  Mass  is  said  so 
rapidly  that  ten,  one  after  another,  occupied  only  one  hour, 
and  that  he  himself  had  been  urged  on  with  the  cry  :  "  Hurry 
up,  Brother,  hurry  up."  Whoever  is  familiar  with  the  older 
Luther's  manner  of  speech,  will  be  on  his  guard  against 
taking  such  jests  seriously  or  as  proof  of  scrupulosity ; 
he  is,  in  reality,  merely  laying  stress  on  the  blatant  contrast 
between  his  own  habit  and  the  precipitation  of  the  Italians. 

In  1519,  i.e.  not  yet  ten  years  after  Luther's  visit,  his 
pupil  Oldecop  came  to  Rome  and  set  to  work  to  make 
diligent  enquiries  concerning  the  stay  there  of  his  already 
famous  master,  with  whose  teaching,  however,  he  did  not 
agree.  As  he  says  in  his  "  Chronik,"  published  not  long 
since,  he  learned  that  Luther  had  taken  lessons  in  Hebrew 
from  a  Jew  called  Jakob,  who  gave  himself  out  to  be  a 
physician.  He  sought  out  the  Jew,  probably  a  German, 
and  heard  from  him  that  "  Martinus  had  begged  the  Pope 

1  Sermo  in  Vincula  S.  Petri,  hence  on  August  1.    "  Werke,"  Weim. 
ed.,  1  (1883),  p.  69. 

2  "Tischreden,"  ed.  Forstemann,  4,  p.  087. 

3  "  Chronik,"  p.  30. 

*  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  40,  p.  284. 


36  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

to  be  allowed  to  study  in  Italy  for  ten  years  in  secular 
dress,"  but  that,  owing  to  the  absence  of  any  authorisation 
from  his  Superiors,  his  request  had  been  refused,  and 
Martinus,  instead  of  being  privileged  to  dress  as  a  secular 
priest,  had  been  obliged  to  retain  his  "  cowl,"  i.e.  the  habit 
of  his  Order.  Oldecop  then  betook  himself  to  the  official 
who,  as  he  learnt,  had  drafted  the  monk's  petition,  and 
who  fully  confirmed  the  Jew's  statement.  There  is  no 
reason  for  doubting  these  new  tales,1  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  in  some  of  the  other  statements  made  by  Oldecop, 
especially  those  in  which  he  had  no  personal  concern,  some 
unintentional  errors  occur.  According  to  the  character  given 
him  by  his  editor  Carl  Euling,  he  was  "  an  educated  and 
honourable  man,  with  good  judgment."2  Notice  deserves 
to  be  taken  of  a  minor  detail  of  the  incident  which  confirms 
the  truth  of  this  account,  namely,  that  the  official,  affrighted 
at  the  mention  of  Luther's  name,  was  at  first  unwilling  to 
speak,  and  then  begged  that  the  fact  of  his  having  had 
dealings  with  him  should  not  be  betrayed.  The  man,  who 
is  here  portrayed  to  the  life,  after  he  became  more  loquacious, 
also  expressed  the  opinion  that  had  Luther  been  allowed 
to  take  off  the  cowl  he  would  never  have  put  it  on  again ; 
a  view,  of  course,  merely  based  on  the  later  course  of  events. 
Luther's  desire  for  learning  was  so  great,  and  his  impulsive 
character  so  marked,  that  it  is  quite  possible  that  he  cherished 
such  a  project.  Nor  was  there  anything  so  very  singular 
in  the  plan,  for  about  that  time  other  monks  had  been 
secularised  at  their  own  request.  In  a  Brief  dated  January 
26,  1517,  Erasmus,  who  was  an  Augustinian  canon, 
received  permission  to  wear  the  dress  of  a  secular  priest, 
a  fact  to  which  Luther,  on  occasion,  makes  allusion.  As 
such  a  privilege,  even  though  restricted  as  to  duration, 
would  without  doubt  have  appealed  to  the  freedom  of 
thought  which  at  that  time  Luther  was  beginning  to  culti- 
vate, the  fact  that  it  was  refused  owing  to  the  lack  of 
authorisation  by  his  German  Superiors  assuredly  cannot 
have  sweetened  his  recollection  of  the  Roman  Curia  ;  its 
only  effect  was  probably  to  wound  his  vanity.  He  himself 
never  speaks  of  this  petition ;  he  had  no  cause  to  do  so,  and 

1  This  remark  only  applies  to  the  statement  in  the  text.     When 
Oldecop  says  he  was  told  in  Rome  that  Luther  had  come  to  Rome 
without  the  authorisation  of  his  Superiors,  this  was  untrue. 

2  Preface  to  Oldecop's  "  Chronik." 


OPINION   OF   ROMANS  37 

indeed  it  ill  agreed  with  the  legend  which,  with  advancing 
years,  he  began  to  weave  about  his  life  in  the  monastery. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  have  probably  a  distorted  version  of 
the  incident  in  an  assertion,  circulated  later  by  his  opponents, 
viz.  that  during  his  stay  at  Rome  he  had  sought  secularisa- 
tion in  order  to  be  able  to  marry.1 

Regarding  the  morals  of  the  Italians  and  not  the  Romans 
only,  he  makes  many  unfavourable  and  even  unfair  state- 
ments in  his  later  reminiscences  of  his  wanderings  through 
their  country.  The  only  things  which  found  favour  in  his  eyes 
were,  in  fact,  their  charity  and  benevolence  as  displayed  in 
some  of  the  hospitals,  particularly  in  Florence,  the  sobriety 
of  the  people  and,  at  Rome,  the  careful  carrying  out  of 
ecclesiastical  business.  An  evil  breath  of  moral  laxity  was 
passing  over  the  whole  country,  more  especially,  however, 
over  the  rich  and  opulent  towns  and  the  higher  classes,  in- 
fected as  they  were  with  the  indiff erentism  of  the  Humanists. 
Those  travelling  alone  found  themselves  exposed  in  the  inns 
to  the  worst  moral  dangers.  We  must  also  call  to  mind  that, 
in  those  very  years  the  Neapolitan,  or  French  disease,  as 
syphilis  was  then  called,  infested  a  wide  area  of  this  other- 
wise delightful  country,  having  been  introduced  by  the 
troops  Vfho  came  to  southern  Italy.  The  places  where 
strangers  from  other  lands  were  obliged  to  spend  the  night 
on  their  travels  were  hotbeds  of  infection  for  both  body  and 
soul. 

Luther  returned  to  Germany  towards  the  month  of 
February,  1511,  though  he  was  no  longer  the  same  man 
as  when  he  set  out.  He  said,  after  his  apostasy  :  "  I,  like 
a  fool,  carried  onions  to  Italy  and  brought  garlic  (i.e.  worse 
stuff)  back  with  me."  As  a  controversialist  he  declared 
that  he  would  not  take  100,000  gulden  to  have  missed 
seeing  Rome,  as  otherwise  he  would  feel  that  he  was  doing 
the  Papacy  an  injustice  ;  he  only  wished  that  everyone 
who  was  about  to  become  a  priest  wrould  visit  Rome. 

1  Cp.  George,  Duke  of  Saxony,  in  the  pamphlet  published  under 
Arnoldi's  name  :  "  Auf  das  Schmahbuchlein  Luthers  wider  den 
Meuchler  von  Dresden,"  1531  ("  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  25,  p.  147),  where  he 
thus  addresses  Luther :  "  You  are  hostile  to  the  Pope  because,  among 
other  reasons,  he  would  not  free  you  from  the  frock  and  give  you  a 
whore  for  your  wife."  The  mention  of  the  frock  points  to  a  reminiscence 
of  what  actually  had  taken  place.  Possibly  the  Jew  is  the  same 
Jakob  who,  in  1520,  accepted  Luther's  doctrine  in  Germany  and  waa 
baptised.  Cp.  Luther's  "  Brief wechsel,"  4,  pp.  97,  147. 


274799 


38  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

A  notable  result  of  his  stay  in  Italy  was,  that  Luther, 
after  his  return  to  the  monastery,  immediately  changed 
his  standpoint  regarding  the  "  observance."  Sent  to  Rome 
for  the  defence  of  the  "  observance,"  he  now  unexpectedly 
veered  round  and  became  its  opponent.  "  He  deserted  to 
Staupitz  "  as  Cochlacus  puts  it,  evidently  using  the  very 
words  of  the  Observantines,  and  soon  Luther  was  seen 
passionately  assailing  the  Observantines,  whose  spokesman 
he  had  been  shortly  before.  In  all  likelihood  his  changed 
view  stood  in  some  connection  with  a  change  in  his  domicile. 
No  sooner  had  he  returned  to  the  Observantine  monastery 
of  Erfurt,  than  he  left  it  for  Wittenberg,  where  he  was  to 
take  his  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity  and  then  ascend  the 
professorial  chair.  Doubtless  under  Staupitz's  influence  the 
fulfilment  of  those  great  hopes  which  he  had  formerly 
cherished  now  arose  on  the  horizon  of  his  mind.  To  continue 
to  withstand  Staupitz  in  the  matter  of  the  observance 
could  but  prove  a  hindrance  to  his  advance,  especially  as 
the  Wittenberg  community  was  for  the  most  part  opposed 
to  the  observance.  Nothing  further  is,  however,  known 
with  regard  to  this  strange  change  of  front.  It  was  of 
the  greatest  importance  for  his  future  development,  as 
will  appear  in  the  sequel ;  the  history  of  his  warfare  against 
the  Observantines,  to  which  as  yet  little  attention  has  been 
paid,  may  also  be  considered  as  a  new  and  determining 
factor  in  his  mental  career. 


4.  The  Little  World  of  Wittenberg  and  the  Great  World 
in  Church  and  State 

Since  the  spring  1511,  Luther  had  been  qualifying,  by 
diligent  study  in  his  cell  in  the  great  Augustinian  monastery 
at  Wittenberg,  to  take  his  degree  of  Doctor  in  Divinity 
in  the  University  of  that  city. 

In  his  later  statements  he  says  that  he  had  small  hopes 
of  success  in  his  new  career  on  account  of  his  weak  health  ; 
that  he  had  in  vain  opposed  Staupitz's  invitation  to  take 
his  doctorate,  and  that  he  had  been  compelled  by  obedience 
to  comply  with  his  Superior's  orders.  After  passing  bril- 
liantly the  requisite  tests,  the  University  bestowed  upon 
him  the  theological  degree  on  October  18,  1512.  Luther  at 
once  commenced  his  lectures  on  Holy  Scripture,  the  subject 


WITTENBERG  39 

of  this,  his  first  course,  being  the  Psalms  (1513-16).  His 
audience  consisted  mainly  of  young  Augustinians,  to  whom 
a  correct  understanding  of  the  Psalms  was  a  practical  need 
for  their  services  in  choir. 

He  displayed  already  in  these  early  lectures,  no  less  than 
in  those  of  the  later  period,  the  whole  force  of  his  fancy  and 
eloquence,  his  great  ability  in  the  choice  of  quotations  from 
the  Bible,  his  extraordinary  subjectivity,  and,  however  out 
of  place  in  such  a  quarter,  the  vehemence  of  his  passion  ; 
in  our  own  day  the  sustained  rhetorical  tone  of  his  lectures 
would  scarcely  appeal  to  the  hearer. 

The  fiery  and  stimulating  teacher  was  in  his  true  element 
at  Wittenberg.  The  animation  that  pervaded  students 
and  teachers,  the  distinction  which  he  enjoyed  amongst 
his  friends,  his  unlimited  influence  over  the  numerous 
young  men  gathered  there,  more  especially  over  the  students 
of  his  own  Order,  no  less  than  the  favour  of  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  for  the  University,  the  Order,  and,  subsequently, 
for  his  own  person,  all  this,  in  spite  of  his  alleged  unwilling- 
ness to  embrace  the  profession,  made  his  stay  at  Wittenberg, 
and  his  work  there,  very  agreeable  to  him,  though  he  does 
once  speak  of  his  removal  thither  as  a  "  come  down  "  (p. 
127).  Wittenberg  became  in  the  sequel  the  citadel  of  his 
teaching.  There  he  remained  until  the  evening  of  his  days 
as  Professor  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  quitted  the  town  only 
when  forced  by  urgent  reasons  to  do  so. 

As  with  all  men  of  great  gifts,  who  make  a  deep  impression 
on  their  day,  but  are,  all  the  same,  children  of  their  time, 
so  was  it  with  Luther.  In  his  case,  however,  the  influence 
from  without  was  all  the  deeper  because  his  lively  and 
receptive  temperament  lent  itself  to  a  stronger  external 
stimulus,  and  also  because  the  position  of  so  young  a  man 
in  a  professorial  chair  in  the  very  heart  of  Germany  did 
much  to  foster  such  influences. 

Martin  Pollich  of  Mcllerstadt,  formerly  Professor  at 
Leipzig,  a  physician,  a  jurist  and  a  man  of  humanistic 
tendencies  who  had  helped  Staupitz  to  organise  the  new 
University,  enjoyed  a  great  reputation  in  the  Wittenberg 
schools.  Alongside  him  were  the  theologians  Amsdorf, 
Carlstadt,  Link,  Lang  and  Staupitz.  Nicholas  von  Amsdorf, 
who  was  subsequently  said  to  be  "  more  Luther  than  Luther 
himself,"  had  been  since  1511  licentiate  of  theology,  and 


40  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

had  at  the  same  time  filled,  as  a  secular  priest,  the  office 
of  Canon  at  the  Castle  Church.  Andreas  Bodenstein  von 
Carlstadt,  usually  known  as  Carlstadt,  occupied  a  position 
amongst  the  Augustinians  engaged  in  teaching.  He  had 
taken  his  degree  at  Wittenberg  in  1510,  and  was  at  the 
outset  a  zealous  representative  of  Scholasticism,  though  he 
speedily  attached  himself  to  Luther's  new  teaching.  He 
was  the  first  to  proclaim  the  solubility  of  religious  vows. 
Wenceslaus  Link  wrorked  at  the  University  from  1509  to 
about  1516,  eventually  succeeding  Staupitz  as  Augustinian 
Vicar-General,  and,  later,  by  his  marriage  in  1523,  gave  the 
last  Augustinians  of  the  unfortunate  Congregation  the 
signal  for  forsaking  the  Order.  Another  Augustinian, 
Johann  Lang,  who  had  been  Luther's  friend  since  the  days 
of  his  first  studies  at  Erfurt,  had  come  to  Wittenberg  about 
1512  as  teacher  at  the  "  Studium  "  of  the  Order,  though 
he  soon  left  it  to  return  to  Erfurt.  Johann  Staupitz,  the 
Superior  of  the  Congregation,  resigned  in  1512  his  Pro- 
fessorship of  Holy  Scripture  at  Wittenberg,  being  unable 
to  attend  to  it  sufficiently  owing  to  his  frequent  absence, 
and  made  over  the  post  to  Luther,  whom,  as  he  says  in  his 
eulogistic  speech  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  he  had  been 
at  pains  to  form  into  a  "  very  special  Doctor  of  Holy 
Scripture." 

The  teaching  in  the  University  at  that  time  was,  of  course, 
from  the  religious  standpoint,  Catholic.  Its  scholarship 
was,  however,  infected  with  the  humanistic  views  of  the 
Italian  naturalism,  and  this  new  school  had  already  stamped 
some  of  the  professors  with  its  freethinking  spirit.1 

The  influence  of  Humanism  on  Luther's  development 
must  be  admitted,  though  it  is  frequently  overrated,  the 
subsequent  open  alliance  of  the  German  Humanists  with 
the  new  gospel  being  set  back,  without  due  cause,  to  Luther's 
early  days.  As  a  student  he  had  plunged  into  the  study  of 

1  A  proof  of  this  may,  e.g. ,  be  found  in  certain  statements  on  marriage 
made  by  the  jurist  Christoph  Scheurl,  borrowed  from  his  professor 
Codro  Urceo  of  Bologna,  and  brought  forward  in  a  speech  held  at 
Wittenberg,  November  16,  1508.  A  Latin  dialogue  which  the  Witten- 
berg professor  Andreas  Meinhardi  published  in  1508  also  betrays  the 
influence  of  those  humanistic  groups.  J.  Haussleitner  ("  Die  Uni- 
versitat  Wittenberg  vor  dem  Eintritt  Luthers,"  1903,  pp.  46  f.,  84  ff.) 
attributes  the  manner  of  expression  and  the  views  of  both  to  the 
ecclesiasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Cp.  on  the  other  side  N.  Paulus 
in  the  "  Wissenschaftl.  Beilage  "  to  "  Germania,"  1904,  No.  10. 


HUMANIST   FRIENDS  41 

the  ancient  classics  which  he  loved,  but  there  was  a  great 
difference  between  this  and  the  being  in  complete  intellectual 
communion  with  the  later  Humanists,  whose  aims  wrere  in 
many  respects  opposed  to  the  Church's.  Thanks  to  the 
practical  turn  of  his  mind,  the  study  of  the  classics,  which 
he  occasionally  continued  later,  never  engaged  his  attention 
or  fascinated  him  to  the  extent  it  did  certain  Humanists  of 
the  Renaissance,  who  saw  in  the  revival  of  classic  Paganism 
the  salvation  of  mankind.  As  a  young  professor  at  the 
University  he  was  not,  however,  able  to  escape  entirely 
the  influence  of  the  liberalism  of  the  age,  with  its  one-sided 
and  ill-considered  opposition  to  so  many  of  the  older 
elements  of  culture,  an  opposition  which  might  easily 
prove  as  detrimental  as  a  blind  and  biassed  defence  of  the 
older  order. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  demonstrate  here  how  dangerous 
a  spirit  of  change  and  libertinism  was  being  imported  in 
the  books  of  the  Italian  Humanists,  or  by  the  German 
students  who  had  attended  their  lectures. 

With  regard  to  Luther  personally,  we  know  that  he  not 
only  had  some  connection  with  Mutian,  the  leader  of  a 
movement  which  at  that  time  was  still  chiefly  literary,  but 
also  that  Johann  Lang  at  once  forwarded  to  Mutian  a 
lecture  against  the  morals  of  the  "  little  Saints  "  of  his  Order 
delivered  by  Luther  at  Gotha  in  1515.1  Luther  also  excused 
himself  in  a  very  respectful  letter  to  this  leader  of  the 
Humanists  for  not  having  called  on  him  when  passing 
through  Gotha  in  1516. 2  Luther's  most  intimate  friend, 
Lang,  through  whom  he  seems  to  have  entered  into  a  cer- 
tain exchange  of  ideas  with  Humanism,  was  an  enthusiastic 
Humanist  and  possessed  of  great  literary  connections. 
Lang,  for  his  part,  speaks  highly  to  Mutian  of  the  assistance 
rendered  him  in  his  studies  by  Luther.3  There  can  therefore 
be  no  doubt  that  Luther  was  no  stranger  to  the  efforts  of 
the  Humanists,  to  their  bold  and  incisive  criticism  of  the 
traditional  methods,  to  their  new  idealism  and  their  spirit 
of  independence.  Many  of  the  ideas  which  filled  the  air  in 
those  days  had  doubtless  an  attraction  for  and  exerted 

1  Kolde,  "  Die  deutsche  Augustinerkongregation,"  p.  263  ;   "  Brief- 
wechsel,"  1,  p.  36,  n.  5. 

2  Letter  of  May  29,  1516,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  35. 

3  Lang  to  Mutian,  May  2,  1515,  "  Briefwechsel."  1,  p.  36,  n.  5. 


42  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

an  influence  on  the  open-hearted,  receptive  disposition 
of  the  talented  monk. 

Luther's  friendship  with  Spalatin,  which  dated  from  his 
Erfurt  days,  must  also  be  taken  into  account  in  this  regard. 
For  Spalatin,  who  came  as  tutor  and  preacher  in  1508  to 
the  Court  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  was  very  closely  allied 
in  spirit  with  the  Humanists  of  Erfurt  and  Gotha.  It  was 
he  who  asked  Luther  for  his  opinion  respecting  the  famous 
dispute  of  the  Cologne  Faculty  with  the  Humanist  Reuchlin, 
a  quarrel  which  engaged  the  sympathy  of  scholars  and  men 
of  education  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  Germany. 
Luther,  in  his  reply,  which  dates  from  January  or  February, 
1514,  had  at  that  time  no  hesitation  in  emphatically  taking 
the  side  of  Reuchlin,  who,  he  declared,  possessed  his  love 
and  esteem.  God,  he  says,  would  carry  on  His  work  in 
spite  of  the  determined  opposition  of  one  thousand  times  one 
thousand  Cologne  burghers,  and  he  adds  meaningly  that 
there  were  much  more  important  matters  with  the  Church 
which  needed  reform  ;  they  were  "  straining  at  gnats  and 
swallowing  camels."1  The  conservative  attitude  of  the 
authorities  at  Cologne  was  at  that  time  not  at  all  to  his  taste. 
Not  long  after  Luther  writes  very  strongly  to  Spalatin, 
again  in  favour  of  Reuchlin,  against  Ortwin  de  Graes  of 
Cologne,  and  says  among  other  things  that  he  had  hitherto 
thought  the  latter  an  ass,  but  that  he  must  now  call  him  a 
dog,  a  wolf  and  a  crocodile,  in  spite  of  his  wanting  to  play 
the  lion,2  expressions  which  are  quite  characteristic  of 
Luther's  style. 

On  the  appearance  of  the  "  Letters  of  Obscure  Men," 
and  a  similar  satirical  writing  which  followed  them,  and 
which  also  found  its  way  into  Luther's  hands,  the  young 
Wittenberg  professor,  instead  of  taking  the  field  against 
the  evil  tendency  of  these  attacks  of  the  Humanist  party  on 
the  "  bigots  of  Scholasticism  and  the  cloister "  as  such 
diatribes  deserved,  and  as  he  in  his  character  of  monk  and 
theologian  should  have  done,  sought  to  take  a  middle 
course  :  he  approved  of  the  purpose  of  the  attacks,  but  not 
of  the  satire  itself,  which  mended  nothing  and  contained  too 
much  invective.  Both  productions,  he  says,  must  have 
come  out  of  the  same  pot ;  they  had  as  their  author,  if  not 

1  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  14. 

1  Letter  of  August  5,  1514,  "  Briefwechsel."  1,  p.  20. 


ERASMUS  43 

the  same,  at  least  a  very  similar  comedian.  It  is  now 
known  that  the  real  author  of  the  letters  which  caused  such 
an  uproar  was  his  former  University  friend,  Crotus  Rubeanus. l 
On  what  terms  did  Luther  stand  with  respect  to  Erasmus, 
the  leader  of  the  Humanists,  before  their  great  and  final 
estrangement  ?  As  he  speaks  of  Erasmus  in  a  letter  of  1517 
to  Lang  as  "  our  Erasmus,"  we  may  infer  that  until  then 
he  was,  to  a  certain  extent,  favourably  disposed  towards 
him.  He  rejoiced  on  reading  his  humanistic  writings  to 
find  that  "  he  belaboured  the  monks  and  clergy  so  manfully 
and  so  learnedly  and  had  torn  the  veil  off  their  out-of-date 
rubbish."  2  Yet,  on  the  same  occasion,  he  confesses  that  his 
liking  for  Erasmus  is  becoming  weaker.  It  was  not  the 
attitude  of  Erasmus  to  the  Church  in  general  which  even 
then  separated  Luther  from  him,  but  his  new  teaching  on 
Grace,  the  origin  of  which  will  be  treated  of  later.  It  is 
true  Luther  conveyed  to  him  through  Spalatin  his  good 
wishes  for  his  renown  and  progress,  but  in  the  same  message 
he  admonished  him  not  to  follow  the  example  of  nearly 
every  commentator  in  interpreting  certain  passages  where 
Paul  condemns  "  righteousness  by  works "  as  referring 
only  to  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  law,  and  not  rather  to  all  the 
works  of  the  Decalogue.  If  such  are  performed  "  outside 
the  Faith  in  Christ,"  then  though  they  should  make  of  a 
man  a  Fabricius,  a  Regulus,  or  a  paragon  of  perfection,  yet 
they  have  as  little  in  common  with  righteousness  as  black- 
berries have  with  figs  "  ;  it  is  not  the  works  which  justify 
a  man,  but  rather  our  righteousness  which  sanctifies  the 
works.  Abel  was  more  pleasing  to  God  than  his  works.3 
The  exclusive  sense  in  which  Luther  interprets  these  words, 
according  to  which  he  does  not  even  admit  that  works  of 
righteousness  are  of  any  value  for  the  increase  of  righteous- 
ness, is  a  consequence  of  his  new  standpoint,  to  which  he  is 
anxious  to  convert  Erasmus  and  all  the  Humanists. 

He  had  the  Humanists  in  his  mind  when  he  wrote  as 
follows  to  Johann  Lang :  "  The  times  are  perilous,  and  a  man 
may  be  a  great  Greek,  or  Hebrew  [scholar]  without  being 
a  wise  Christian.  .  .  .  He  who  makes  concessions  to  human 

1  To  Johann  Lang,  October  5,   1516,  and  to  Spalatin  about  the 
same  time,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  pp.  59,  62. 

2  Letter  of  March  1,  1517,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  88. 

3  To  Spalatin,  October  19,  1516,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  64. 


44  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

free-will  judges  differently  from  him  who  knows  nothing 
save  Grace  alone."1  But  this  is  to  forestall  a  development 
of  his  error,  which  will  be  described  later.  At  the  time  that 
his  new  doctrine  originated  he  was  far  more  in  sympathy 
with  the  theories  of  certain  groups  of  late  mediaeval  mystics 
than  with  the  views  of  the  Humanists,  because,  as  will 
appear  later,  he  found  in  them  the  expression  of  that 
annihilation  of  the  human  by  means  of  Grace,  of  which  the 
idea  was  floating  before  his  mind,  and  because  he  also 
discovered  in  them  an  "inwardness"  which  agreed  with 
his  own  feelings  at  that  time. 

From  Erasmus  and  his  compeers  he  undoubtedly  borrowed, 
in  addition  to  a  spirit  of  justifiable  criticism,  an  exaggerated 
sentiment  of  independence  towards  ecclesiastical  antiquity. 
The  contact  with  their  humanistic  views  assuredly  strength- 
ened in  him  the  modern  tendency  to  individualism.  Not 
long  after  a  change  in  the  nature  of  his  friendship  necessarily 
took  place.  His  antagonism  to  Erasmus  in  the  matter  of 
his  doctrine  of  Grace  led  to  a  bitter  dispute  between  the 
two,  to  which  Luther's  contribution  was  his  work  on  "  The 
Servitude  of  the  Will "  (De  servo  arbilrio) ;  at  the  same  time 
his  alliance  with  the  Humanists  remained  of  value  to  him 
in  the  subversive  movement  which  he  had  inaugurated. 

Mighty  indeed  were  the  forces,  heralds  of  a  spiritual 
upheaval,  which,  since  the  fifteenth  century,  had  streamed 
through  the  Western  world  in  closer  or  more  distant  con- 
nection with  the  great  revival  of  the  study  of  classical 
antiquity.  They  proclaimed  the  advent  of  a  new  cycle  in 
the  history  of  mankind.  This  excited  world  could  not  fail 
to  impart  its  impulse  to  the  youthful  Luther. 

The  recently  discovered  art  of  printing  had,  as  it  were 
at  one  blow,  created  a  world- wide  community  of  intellectual 
productions  and  literary  ideas  such  as  the  Middle  Ages 
had  never  dreamed  of.  The  nations  were  drawn  closer 
together  at  that  period  by  the  interchange  of  the  most  varied 
and  far-reaching  discoveries.  The  spirit  of  worldly  enter- 
prise awoke  as  from  a  long  slumber  as  a  result  of  the  astonish- 
ing discovery  of  great  and  wealthy  countries  overseas. 

With  the  greater  facilities  for  intellectual  intercourse  and 
the  increase  of  means  of  study,  criticism  set  to  work  on  all 
branches  of  learning  with  greater  results  than  ever  before. 
1  Letter  of  March  1,  1517,  "  Brief wechcsel,"  1,  p.  88. 


ECCLESIASTICAL   ABUSES  45 

The  greater  States  now  did  what  they  had  been  willing  but 
unable  to  do  before  ;  they  freed  themselves  more  and  more 
from  the  former  tutelage  of  the  Church  ;  they  aimed  at 
securing  freedom  and  shaking  off  that  priestly  influence 
to  which,  in  part  at  least,  they  owed  their  stability  and  their 
growth  ;  nor  was  this  movement  confined  to  the  greater 
States,  for,  in  Germany,  at  any  rate,  the  wealthy  cities,  the 
great  landed  proprietors  and  princes  were  all  alike  intent 
on  ridding  themselves  of  the  oppression  under  which  they 
had  hitherto  laboured  and  on  securing  for  themselves  an 
increase  of  power.  In  brief,  everywhere  the  old  restraints 
were  breaking  down,  everywhere  a  forward  movement  of 
individualism  was  in  progress  at  the  expense  of  the  common- 
weal and  the  traditional  order  of  the  Middle  Ages  ;  but, 
above  all,  at  the  expense  of  the  Church's  religious  authority, 
which,  alone  till  then,  had  kept  individualism  in  check 
to  the  profit  of  humanity. 

It  would  indeed  have  been  well  had  at  least  the  Catholic 
Church  at  that  critical  period  been  free  from  weakness  and 
abuse.  Her  Divine  power  of  blessing  the  nations,  it  is  true, 
still  survived,  her  preaching  of  the  truth,  her  treasure  of 
the  Sacraments,  in  short,  her  soul,  was  unchanged  ;  but, 
because  she  was  suffering  from  many  lamentable  imper- 
fections, the  disruptive  forces  were  able  to  come  into  play 
with  fatal  results.  The  complaints  of  eloquent  men  full  of 
zeal  for  souls,  both  at  that  time  and  during  the  preceding 
decades,  particularly  in  Germany,  over  the  decline  of 
religious  life  among  the  Faithful  and  the  corruption  in  the 
clergy,  were  only  too  well  founded,  and  deserved  to  have 
met  with  a  much  more  effectual  reception  than  they  did. 
What  the  monk  of  Wittenberg,  with  unbridled  passion  and 
glaring  exaggeration,  was  about  to  thunder  forth  over  the 
world  in  his  mighty  call  for  reform,  had  already  for  the  most 
part  been  urged  by  others,  yea,  by  great  Saints  of  the  Church 
who  attacked  the  abuses  with  the  high-minded  zeal  of  ripe 
experience.  Strict,  earnest  and  experienced  men  had  set  to 
work  on  a  Catholic  reform  in  many  parts  of  the  Church, 
not  excepting  Germany,  in  the  only  profitable  way,  viz. 
not  by  doctrinal  innovation,  but  by  raising  the.  standard 
of  morality  among  both  people  and  clergy.  But  progress 
was  slow,  very  slow,  for  reasons  which  cannot  be  dealt  with 
here.  The  life-work  of  the  pious  founder  of  his  own  Con- 


46  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

gregation  might  well  have  served  Luther  as  an  admirable 
example  of  moral  regeneration  and  efficiency  ;  for  the  aim 
of  Andreas  Proles  was,  as  a  Protestant  writer  remarks  : 
"  A  strong  and  mighty  Reformation  "  ;  he  lived  in  hopes 
that  God  would  shortly  raise  up  a  hero  capable  of  bringing 
it  about  with  strength  and  determination,  though  the 
Reformation  he  had  in  his  mind,  as  our  historian  allows, 
could  only  have  been  a  Reformation  in  the  Catholic  sense.1 
Another  attractive  example  of  reforming  zeal  was  also  given 
under  Luther's  very  eyes  by  the  Windesheim  Congregation 
of  the  Brethren  of  the  Common  Life,  with  whom  he  had 
been  in  friendly  intercourse  from  his  boyish  days. 

The  disorders  in  Germany  had  an  all  too  powerful  strong- 
hold in  the  higher  ranks  of  ecclesiastical  authority.  Not 
until  after  the  Council  of  Trent  did  it  become  apparent 
how  much  the  breaking  down  of  this  bulwark  of  corruption 
would  cost.  The  bishops  were  for  the  most  part  incapable 
or  worldly.  Abbots,  provosts,  wealthy  canons  and  digni- 
taries vied  with  and  even  excelled  the  episcopate  in  their 
neglect  of  the  duties  of  their  clerical  state.  ^  In  the  filling 
of  Church  offices  worldly  influence  was  paramount,  and  in 
its  wake  followed  forced  nominations,  selfishness,  incom- 
petence and  a  general  retrograde  movement ;  the  moral 
disorders  among  the  clergy  and  the  people  accumulated 
under  lazy  and  incompetent  superiors.  The  system  of 
indulgences,  pilgrimages,  sodalities  and  numerous  practices 
connected  with  the  veneration  of  the  Saints,  as  well  as  many 
other  details  of  worship,  showed  lamentable  excesses. 

Of  the  above-mentioned  evils  within  the  German  Church, 
two  will  be  examined  more  closely  :  the  interference  of  the 
Government  and  the  worldly-minded  nobility  in  Church 
matters,  and  the  evil  ways  of  the  higher  and  lower  grades 
of  the  clergy. 

Not  merely  were  the  clerical  dues  frequently  seized  by 
the  princes  and  lesser  authorities,  but  positions  in  the 
Cathedral  chapters  and  episcopal  sees  were,  in  many  cases, 
handed  over  arbitrarily  to  members  of  the  nobility  or  ruling 
houses,  so  that  in  many  places  the  most  important  posts 
were  held  by  men  without  a  vocation  and  utterly  unworthy 
of  the  office.  "  When  the  ecclesiastical  storm  broke  out  at 

1  Kolde,  "Die  deutsche  Augustinerkongregation,"  p.  163;  cp. 
p.  96  ft  and  Kolde,  "  Martin  Luther,"  1,  pp.  47,  50,  59  f. 


EPISCOPAL  PLURALISTS  47 

the  end  of  the  second  decade  of  the  sixteenth  century  the 
following  archbishoprics  and  bishoprics  were  filled  by  the 
sons  of  princes  :  Bremen,  Freising,  Halbcrstadt,  Hildesheim, 
Magdeburg,  Maycnce,  Merscburg,  Metz,  Minden,  Miinster, 
Naumburg,  Osnabriick,  Paderborn,  Passau,  Ratisbon,  Spires, 
Verden  and  Verdun."1  The  bishops  drawn  from  the 
princely  houses  were,  as  a  rule,  involved  in  worldly  business 
or  in  Court  intrigues,  even  where,  as  was  the  case,  for  instance, 
with  the  powerful  Archbishop  of  Mayence,  Albrecht  of 
Brandenburg,  their  early  education  had  not  been  entirely 
anti-ecclesiastical. 

Another  evil  was  the  uniting  of  several  important  bishop- 
rics in  the  hands  of  one  individual.  "  The  Archbishop  of 
Bremen  was  at  the  same  time  Bishop  of  Verden,  the  Bishop 
of  Osnabriick  also  Bishop  of  Paderborn,  the  Archbishop 
of  Mayence  also  Archbishop  of  Magdeburg  and  Bishop  of 
Halberstadt.  George,  Palsgrave  of  the  Rhine  and  Duke  of 
Bavaria,  had  already  in  his  thirteenth  year  been  made 
Cathedral  Provost  of  Maycnce  and  afterwards  became 
a  Canon  of  Cologne  and  Treves,  Provost  of  St.  Donatian's 
at  Bruges,  patron  of  the  livings  of  Hochheim  and  Lorch  on 
the  Rhine  and  finally,  in  1513,  Bishop  of  Spires.  By  special 
privilege  of  Pope  Leo  X,  granted  June  22, 1513,  he,  an  other- 
wise earnest  and  pious  man,  was  permitted  to  hold  all  these 
benefices  in  addition  to  his  bishopric  of  Spires."2  A  con- 
temporary, reviewing  the  condition  of  the  worldly-minded 
bishops,  complains  "  that  the  higher  clergy  are  chiefly  to 
blame  for  the  careless  way  in  which  the  cure  of  souls  is 
exercised.  They  place  unsuitable  shepherds  over  the  people, 
while  they  themselves  draw  the  tithes.  Many  seek  to  unite 
in  their  grasp  the  greatest  possible  number  of  livings  without 
fulfilling  the  duties  they  entail  and  waste  the  revenues  of 
the  Church  in  luxury,  on  servants,  pages,  dogs  and  horses. 
One  seeks  to  outvie  the  other  in  ostentation  and  luxury."3 
One  of  the  most  important  explanations  of  the  fact,  that, 
at  the  very  outset  of  the  religious  innovation,  the  falling 
away  from  the  Church  took  place  with  such  astonishing 
celerity,  is  to  be  found  in  the  corruption  and  apathy  of  the 
episcopate.4 

1  Janssen-Pastor,    "  Gesch.    des   deutschen   Volkes,"   I18,   p.    703 ; 
English  translation,  "  Hist,  of  the  German  People,"  ii.,  p.  297.     See 
also  Pastor,  "  Hist,  of  the  Popes  "  (Engl.  trans.),  vol.  vii.,  p.  290  ff. 

2  Ibid.  3  Ibid.,  p.  700.  *  Ibid.,  p.  703. 


48  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Bertold  Pirstinger,  Bishop  of  Chiemsee  and  author  of 
the  lament  "  Onus  ecclesice,"  wrote  sadly  in  1519  :  "  Where 
does  the  choice  fall  upon  a  good,  capable  and  learned  bishop, 
where  on  one  who  is  not  inexperienced,  sensual  and  ignorant 
of  spiritual  things  ?  .  .  .  I  know  of  some  bishops  who 
prefer  to  wear  a  sword  and  armour  rather  than  their  clerical 
garb.  It  has  come  to  this,  that  the  episcopate  is  now  given 
up  to  worldly  possessions,  sordid  cares,  stormy  wars, 
worldly  sovereignty.  .  .  .  The  prescribed  provincial  and 
diocesan  synods  are  not  held.  Hence  many  Church  matters 
which  ought  to  be  reformed  are  neglected.  Besides  this, 
the  bishops  do  not  visit  their  parishes  at  fixed  times,  and 
yet  they  exact  from  them  heavy  taxes.  Thus  the  lives  of 
the  clergy  and  laity  have  sunk  to  a  low  level  and  the  churches 
are  unadorned  and  falling  to  pieces."  The  zealous  bishop 
closes  his  gloomy  description,  in  which  perhaps  he  is  too 
inclined  to  generalise,  with  a  touching  prayer  to  God  for 
a  true  reformation  from  within  :  "  Therefore  grant  that 
the  Church  may  be  reformed,  which  has  been  redeemed  by 
Thy  Blood  and  is  now,  through  our  fault,  near  to  destruc- 
tion."1 He  considers,  however,  that  a  reform  of  the  Church 
undertaken  from  within  and  preserving  her  faith  and  in- 
stitutions is  what  is  needed.  The  deterioration  was  in  his 
eyes,  and  in  those  of  the  best  men  of  the  day,  undoubtedly 
very  great,  but  not  irreparable. 

A  glance  at  the  work  of  many  excellent  men,  such  as 
Trithemius,  Wimpfeling,  Geiler  of  Kaysersberg  and  others, 
may  serve  as  a  warning  against  an  excessive  generalisation 
with  regard  to  the  deterioration  in  the  ranks  of  the  higher 
and  lower  clergy.  Weaknesses,  disorders  and  morbid 
growths  are  far  more  apparent  to  the  eyes  of  contemporaries 
than  goodness,  which  usually  fails  to  attract  attention. 
Even  Johann  Nider,  the  Dominican,  who,  as  a  rule,  is  un- 
sparing in  lashing  the  weaknesses  of  the  clergy  of  his  day, 
is  compelled  to  speak  a  word  of  warning  :  "  Take  heed 
never  to  pass  a  universal  judgment  when  speaking  only  of 
many,  otherwise  you  will  never,  or  hardly  ever,  escape 
passing  an  unjust  one."2 

That  there  was,  however,  the  most  pressing  need  of  a 
reform  in  the  lives  of  both  higher  and  lower  clergy  is  proved 
by  a  glance  at  the  state  of  the  priesthood.  The  position 

1  Janssen-Pastor,  ibid.,  p.  701.  2  Ibid.,  p.  721. 


THE   LOWER   CLERGY  49 

of  the  lower  clergy,  in  comparison  with  that  of  their  betters 
"  who  rolled  in  riches  and  luxury,"  was  one  not  in  keeping 
with  the  dignity  of  their  state.  "  Apart  from  the  often  very 
precarious  tithes  and  stole-fees  they  had  no  stipend,  so  that 
their  poverty,  and  sometimes  also  their  avarice,  obliged 
them  to  turn  to  other  means  of  livelihood,  which  .  .  . 
necessarily  exposed  them  to  the  contempt  of  the  people. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  '  a  very  large  portion  of  the 
lower  clergy  had  fallen  so  far  from  the  ideal  of  their  calling, 
that  one  may  speak  of  the  priestly  proletariat  of  that 
day,  using  the  word  in  both  its  ordinary  and  its  literal 
sense.'  This  clerical  proletariat  was  ready  to  join  any 
movement  which  promised  to  promote  its  own  low 
aims."1 

The  number  of  clergy,  largely  owing  to  the  excessive 
multiplication  of  small  foundations  without  any  cure  of 
souls,  had  increased  to  such  an  extent  that  among  so  many 
there  must  necessarily  have  been  a  very  large  number  who 
had  no  real  vocation,  while  their  lack  of  employment  must 
have  spelt  a  real  danger  to  their  morals.  Attached  to  two 
churches  at  Breslau  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century 
were  236  clerics,  all  of  them  mere  Mass-priests,  i.e.  ordained 
simply  to  say  Mass  in  the  chantry  chapels  founded  with 
very  small  endowments.  Besides  the  daily  celebration, 
these  Mass-priests  had  as  their  only  obligation  the  recital 
of  the  Breviary.  In  the  Cathedral  at  Meissen  there  were, 
in  1480,  besides  14  canons,  14  Mass-priests  and  60  curates. 
In  Strasburg  the  Cathedral  foundation  comprised  36  canon- 
ries,  that  of  St.  Thomas  20,  Old  St.  Peter's  17,  New  St. 
Peter's  15  and  All  Saints'  12.  In  addition  to  these  were 
also  numerous  deputies  who  were  prepared  to  officiate  at 
High  Mass  in  place  of  the  actual  beneficiaries.  Of  such 
deputies  there  were  no  fewer  than  63  attached  to  the  Cathe- 
dral, where  there  were  also  38  chaplaincies.  In  Cologne 
Johann  Agricola  gives  the  number  of  "  priests  and  monks  " 
(though  he  adds  "  so  it  is  said  ")  as  5000  ;  on  another 
occasion  he  estimates  the  number  of  monks  and  nuns  only, 
at  5000.  What  is  certain  is  that  the  "  German  Rome  " 
on  the  Rhine  numbered  at  that  time  11  collegiate  foun- 

1  Janssen-Pastor,  ibid.,  pp.  703,  704.  The  words  in  single  inverted 
commas  are  from  J.  E.  Jorg,  "  Deutschland  in  der  Revolutions- 
periode  1522-26,"  Freiburg,  1851,  p.  191. 


50  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

dations,  19  parish  churches,  over  100  chapels,  22  monasteries, 
12  hospitals  and  76  religious  houses.1 

The  above-mentioned  Bishop  of  Chiemsee  attributes  the 
corruption  of  the  pries.thood  principally  to  the  misuse  by 
clergy  and  laity  of  their  right  of  patronage  b^th  in  nomina- 
tions and  by  arbitrary  interference.  Gciler  of  Kaysersberg 
is  of  the  same  opinion  ;  he  attributes  to  the  laity,  more 
particularly  to  the  patrons  among  the  nobility,  the  sad 
condition  of  the  parishes.  Uneducated,  bad,  immoral  men 
were  now  presented,  he  says,  not  the  good  and  virtuous.2 
Cardinal  Nicholas  of  Cusa,  who  did  so  much  service  to 
Germany,  had  declared  quite  openly  the  cause  of  the 
deformation  of  the  clerical  system  to  be  the  admission  to 
Holy  Orders  of  unworthy  candidates,  the  concubinage  of 
the  clergy,  plurality  of  benefices,  and  simony.  Towards  the 
end  of  the  fifteenth  century  the  complaints  increased, 
more  especially  with  regard  to  the  immorality  of  the  clergy. 
"  The  numerous  regulations  of  bishops  and  synods  leave 
no  doubt  about  the  fact  that  a  large  portion  of  the  German 
clergy  transgressed  the  law  of  celibacy  in  the  most  flagrant 
manner."3  A  statement  which  was  presented  to  the  Dukes 
of  Bavaria  in  1477  declared  that  in  the  opinion  of  many 
friends  and  advocates  of  a  healthy  reform,  an  improvement 
in  the  morals  of  the  clergy,  where  the  real  cause  of  all  the 
Church's  evils  lay,  must  be  taken  in  hand.  It  is  true  there 
were  districts  where  a  blameless  and  praiseworthy  clergy 
worked,  as,  for  example,  the  Rhine-Lands,  Schleswig- 
Holstein  and  the  Algau.  On  the  other  hand,  in  Saxony, 
Luther's  home,  and  in  Franconia  and  Bavaria  great  dis- 
orders were  reported  in  this  respect.  The  "  De  ruina 
ecclesice"  an  earlier  work,  attributed  to  Nicholas  of 
Clemangcs,  tells  us  of  bishops  in  the  commencement  of 
the  fifteenth  century  who,  in  consideration  of  a  money  pay- 
ment, permitted  concubinage  to  their  clergy,  and  Hefele's 
"  History  of  the  Councils "  gives  numerous  synodical 
decrees  of  that  date  forbidding  the  bishops  to  accept 

1  Janssen-Pastor,  ibid.,  p.  705  f.  See  below  (vol.  ii.,  ch.  xiv.  5)  what 
we  say  regarding  the  clergy  and  monasteries  at  Erfurt. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  712. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  709.     On  the  Synods,  see  Hefele-Hergenrother,  "  Kon- 
ziliengesch.,"  vol.  viii.      Cp.  Janssen-Pastor,  as  above,  p.  680  f.,  and 
H.  Grisar,  "  Ein  Bild  aus  dem  deutschen  Synodalleben  im  Jahrhun- 
dert  vor  der  Glaubensspaltung  "  ("  Hist.  Jahrb.,"  1,  1880,  pp.  603-40). 


CLERGY  VERSUS   LAITY  51 

money  or  presents  in  return  for  permitting  or  conniving  at 
concubinage.1 

Along  with  concubinage  many  of  the  higher  clergy  dis- 
played a  luxury  and  a  spirit  of  haughty  pride  which  repelled 
the  people,  especially  the  more  independent  burghers. 
Members  of  the  less  fortunate  clergy  gave  themselves  up 
to  striving  after  gain  by  pressing  for  their  tithes  and  fees 
and  rents,  a  tendency  which  was  encouraged  both  in  high 
and  low  by  the  excessive  demands  made  by  Rome.  Worth- 
less so-called  courtisans,  i.e.  clerks  furnished  with  briefs 
from  the  Papal  Court  (corte),  seized  upon  the  best  benefices 
and  gave  an  infectious  example  of  greed,  while  at  the  same 
time  their  action  helped  to  add  fuel  to  the  prejudice  and 
hatred  already  existing  for  the  Curia.2 

Innumerable  were  the  causes  of  friction  in  the  domain  of 
worldly  interests  which  gave  rise  to  strife  and  enmity 
between  laity  and  clergy.  Laymen  saw  with  displeasure 
how  the  most  influential  and  laborious  posts  were  filled, 
not  by  the  beneficiaries  themselves,  but  by  incapable 
representatives,  while  the  actual  incumbents  resided  else- 
where in  comfortable  ease  and  leisure  at  the  expense  of  the 
old  foundations  endowed  by  the  laity.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  churches  and  monasteries  complained  of  the  rights 
appropriated  or  misused  by  the  princes  and  nobility,  an 
abuse  which  often  led  to  the  monasteries  serving  as 
homes  for  worn-out  officials,  or  to  the  vexatious  seizure 
and  retention  of  the  estates  of  deceased  priests  or  abbots. 
It  is  clear  that  such  a  self-seeking  policy  on  the  part  of  the 
powerful  naturally  resulted  in  the  most  serious  evils  and 
abuses  in  Church  matters,  quite  apart  from  the  bad  feeling 
thus  atoused  between  the  clerical  and  lay  elements  of  the 
State. 

The  richer  monasteries  in  particular  had  to  submit  to 
becoming  the  preserves  of  the  nobles,  who  made  it  their 
practice  to  provide  in  this  way  for  the  younger  scions  of 

1  Nicolaus  de  Clemangiis,   "  De  ruina  ecclesice,"   c.   22,   in  Herm. 
von   der   Hardt,    "  Magnum  cecumenicum   Conslantiense   Concilium," 
Helmestad.,  1700,  1,  3  col.,  23  sq. ;    Hefele,  as  above,  7,  pp.  385,  416, 
422,  594  ;    8,  p.  97.     loh.  de  Segovia,  "  Hist.  syn.  Basil.",  Vindob., 
1873S   2,  p.   774  :     "  Quia  in  quibusdam  regionibus  nonnulli  iurisdic- 
tionem    ecclesiasticam     habentes     pecuniarios    questus    a    concubinariis 
percipere  non  erubescunt,  patiendo  eos  in  tali  fceditate  sordescere." 

2  Cp.  on  the  "  courtisans,"  Janssen-Pastor,  ibid.,  pp.  715-18. 


52  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

their  family,  and  for  that  reason  sought  to  prevent  members 
of  the  middle  classes  being  admitted  to  profession.  The 
efforts  to  reform  lax  monasteries,  which  are  often  met  with 
about  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  were  frequently  stifled 
by  these  and  similar  worldly  influences. 

In  the  disintegration  of  ecclesiastical  order,  the  power  and 
influence  of  the  rulers  of  the  land  with  regard  to  Church 
matters  was,  as  might  be  expected,  constantly  on  the 
increase. 

Many  German  princes,  influenced  by  the  ideas  with  re- 
gard to  the  dignity  of  the  State  which  came  into  such  vogue 
in  the  fifteenth  century,  and  dissatisfied  with  the  concessions 
already  made  to  them  by  the  Church,  arrogated  still  further 
privileges,  for  example,  the  taxation  of  Church  lands,  the 
restriction  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  the  so-called  Govern- 
ment Placet  and  an  oppressive  right  of  visiting  and  super- 
vising the  parishes  within  their  territories.  There  had 
thus  grown  up  in  many  districts  a  system  of  secular  inter- 
ference in  Church  matters  long  before  the  religious  apostasy 
of  the  sixteenth  century  resulted  in  the  total  submission 
of  the  Church  to  the  Protestant  princes  of  the  land.  The 
Catholic  ruler  recognised  in  principle  the  doctrines  and 
rights  of  the  Church.  What,  however,  was  to  happen  if 
rulers,  equipped  with  such  twofold  authority,  altered  their 
attitude  to  the  Church  on  the  outbreak  of  the  schism  ? 
Their  fidelity  was  in  many  cases  already  put  to  a  severe 
test  by  the  disorders  of  the  clergy,  which  were  doing  harm 
to  their  country  and  which  Rome  made  no  attempt  to 
suppress.  The  ecclesiastico-political  complaints  of  the 
princes  (the  famous  Gravamina)  against  Rome  are  proofs 
of  their  annoyance  ;  for  these  charges,  as  Dr.  Eck  pointed 
out,  were  for  the  most  part  well  founded  ;  Eck's  opinion 
was  shared  by  other  authorities,  such  as  Bertold  von  Henne- 
berg,  Wimpfeling,  Duke  George  of  Saxony,  and  Aleander 
the  Papal  Nuncio,  who  all  express  themselves  in  the  same 
manner  regarding  the  financial  grievances  against  Rome, 
which  were  felt  in  Germany  throughout  all  ranks  and  classes 
down  to  the  meanest  individual.1 

"  On  account  of  these  and  other  causes  the  irritation  and 
opposition  to  the  Holy  See  had,  on  the  eve  of  the  great 
German  schism,  reached  boiling  point ;  this  vexation  is 
1  Cp.  Janssen-Pastor,  ibid.,  p.  743. 


REAL   ABUSES  53 

explained,  as  the  '  Gravamina  nationis  Germanicce  '  clearly 
prove,  by  the  disorders  of  the  Curia,  and  still  more  by 
its  unceasing  demands."  "  That  the  smouldering  dis- 
content broke  into  open  flame  was  the  doing  of  those 
scoffers  without  faith  or  conscience,  such  as  the  Humanists, 
who  persisted  in  pouring  on  the  fire  the  oil  of  their  sophis- 
tries."1 The  Catholic  historian  from  whom  these  words 
are  borrowed  rightly  draws  attention  to  the  "  mistaken 
policy  "  entered  on  by  Luther's  followers  when  they  attacked 
the  hierarchical  order  on  account  of  the  disorders  rampant 
in  the  life  and  administration  of  the  Church.  The  success 
of  their  "  mistaken  policy  "  was  a  "  speaking  proof  of  the 
coarseness,  blindness  and  passion  of  the  German  people  at 
that  time,"  but  in  its  practical  results  their  policy  helped  to 
bring  about  an  ever-to-be-regretted  alteration  and  to  open 
a  yawning  chasm  which  still  exists  to-day.  "  That  the 
vexation  was  not  altogether  without  cause  no  honest  historian 
can  deny,  whatever  his  enthusiasm  for  the  Catholic  Church," 
for  "  the  action  of  Churchmen,  whether  belonging  to  the 
hierarchy  or  to  the  regular  or  secular  clergy,  cannot  be 
misunderstood.  Throughout  the  whole  of  Christendom, 
and  particularly  in  Germany,  the  general  state  of  things 
was  deplorable.  .  .  .  Even  though  the  evils  of  the  waning 
Middle  Ages  may  have  been,  and  still  continue  to  be, 
grossly  exaggerated  by  Protestants,  and  though  in  the 
fifteenth  century  we  see  many  cheering  examples  and  some 
partially  successful  attempts  at  reform,  yet  there  still 
remains  enough  foulness  to  account  psychologically  for  the 
falling  away."2 

And  yet  the  disorders  in  matters  ecclesiastical  in  Germany 
would  not  have  entailed  the  sad  consequences  they  did  had 
they  not  been  accompanied  by  a  great  number  of  social 

1  Jos.   Schmidlin,   "Das   Luthertum  als  historische  Erscheinung" 
("Wissenschaftl.  Beilage"  to  "  Germania,"  1909,  Nos.  13-15),  p.  99  f. 
Cp.  Albert  Weiss,  "  Luther  urid  Luthertum  "  (in  Denifle's  2nd  vol.), 
p.  34  ff. 

2  Schmidlin,  as  above.    Also  Albert  Weiss,  as  above,  p.  108,  allows : 
"  The  conditions  of  things  at  the  commencement  of  the  sixteenth  century 
were  such  that  their  continuance  was  clearly  impossible,  and  it  was 
easy  to  predict  a  catastrophe.  .  .  .  The  abuses  were  great  and  had 
become  in  some  cases  intolerable,  so  that  we  can  understand  how 
many   lost   courage,   patience   and   confidence.  ...  It   is   true   that 
everything  was  not  corrupt,  but  the  good  there  was  was  too  feeble  to 
struggle  with  success  against  the  evil."     Nevertheless,  in  the  genesis 
of  the  movement  which  led  to  the  falling  away  from  the  Church,  in 


54  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

evils,  especially  the  intense  discontent  of  the  lower  classes 
with  their  position  and  a  hostile  jealousy  of  the  laity  against 
the  privileges  and  possessions  of  the  clergy.  Savage  out- 
breaks of  rebellion  against  the  old  traditional  order  of  things 
were  of  frequent  occurrence.  In  many  localities  the  peasants 
were  in  arms  against  their  princes  and  masters  for  the 
improvement  of  their  conditions ;  the  knights  and  the 
nobility,  to  say  nothing  of  the  cities,  gave  themselves  up  to 
the  spirit  of  aggrandisement  referred  to  above.  It  was  just 
this  spirit  of  unrest  and  discontent  of  which  the  coming 
mighty  movement  of  intellectual  and  religious  reform  was 
to  avail  itself. 

If  we  look  more  closely  at  Italy  and  Rome  we  find  that 
in  Italy,  which  comprised  within  its  limits  the  seat  of  the 
supreme  authority  in  the  Church  and  of  which  the  influence 
on  civilisation  everywhere  was  so  important,  complete 
religious  indifference  had  taken  root  among  many  of,  the 
most  highly  cultured.  The  Renaissance,  the  famed  classic 
regeneration,  had  undergone  a  change  for  the  worse,  and, 
in  the  name  of  education,  was  promoting  the  most  question- 
able tendencies.  After  having  been  welcomed  and  en- 
couraged by  the  Papacy  with  over-great  confidence  it  dis- 
appointed both  the  Popes  and  the  Church  with  its  poisonous 
fruits. 

At  the  time  that  the  Holy  See  was  lavishing  princely 
gifts  on  art  and  learning,  the  pernicious  system  of  Church 
taxation  so  often  complained  of  by  the  nations  was  be- 
coming more  and  more  firmly  established.  This  taxation, 
which  had  started  at  the  time  of  the  residence  of  the  Popes 
at  Avignon  in  consequence  of  the  real  state  of  need  in  which 
the  central  government  of  the  Church  then  stood,  became 
more  and  more  an  oppressive  burden,  especially  in  Germany. 
It  was  exploited  by  Luther  in  one  of  his  earliest  contro- 
versial writings  where,  voicing  the  popular  discontent  in 
that  spiteful  language  of  which  he  was  a  master,  he  joined 
his  protest  to  that  of  the  German  Estates  of  the  realm. 

spite  of  the  more  favourable  view  of  the  conditions  which  Weiss  else- 
where takes,  the  real  abuses  in  the  Church,  even  in  his  own  account, 
play  a  prominent  part.  That  Luther's  work  was  not  "necessary  in  view 
of  the  moral  corruption"  (p.  6),  and  that  it  "did  not  follow  as  an  in- 
evitable result "  of  the  same  (p.  37),  but,  on  the  contrary,  was  merely 
facilitated  by  circumstances,  will  be  granted  him  by  all  who  review 
the  period  with  an  unprejudiced  mind 


PAPAL   EXACTIONS  55 

Combining  truth  and  fancy,  the  administration  of  the  Papal 
finances  became  in  his  hands  a  popular  and  terribly  effective 
weapon.  It  has  frequently  been  pointed  out  how  much 
the  authority  of  the  Holy  See  suffered  in  the  preceding 
age,  not  only  on  account  of  the  Western  Schism  when  three 
rival  claimants  simultaneously  strove  for  the  tiara,  but 
also  through  the  so-called  reforming  councils  and  their 
opposition  to  the  constitution  of  the  Cburch,  through  the 
political  mistakes  of  the  Popes  since  they  established  their 
headquarters  in  France,  through  the  struggle  they  waged 
to  assert  their  power  in  Italy,  that  apple  of  discord  of  rising 
nations,  and  also,  in  the  case  of  the  Avignon  Popes,  through 
their  lack,  or,  at  any  rate,  suspected  lack,  of  independence. 
To  this  we  must  add  the  shocking  behaviour  of  the  Curial 
officials  and  of  several  of  the  cardinals  in  the  Eternal  City, 
especially  at  the  turn  of  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  cen- 
turies, also  the  disgraceful  example  of  Alexander  VI  and  the 
Borgia  family,  the  bearing  of  his  successor  Julius  II,  more 
befitting  a  soldier  than  an  ecclesiastic,  and  the  very  worldly 
spirit  of  Leo  X  and  his  Court.  Ostentation  and  the  abuse 
of  worldly  possessions  and  Church  revenues  which  Alvarez 
Pelayo,  the  Spanish  Franciscan,  had  already  bewailed  in 
his  "  De  planctu  ecclesice  "  had  risen  to  still  greater  heights 
at  Rome.  The  work  of  this  severe  critic,  who,  in  spite  of 
his  fault-finding,  was  nevertheless  well  disposed  to  the  Curia, 
was  in  general  circulation  just  previous  to  Luther's  appear- 
ance on  the  field  ;  it  was  several  times  reprinted,  for  in- 
stance, at  Ulm  in  1474,  and  again  at  Lyons  in  1517,  with  a 
dedication  to  the  later  Pope  Hadrian  VI.  It  is  there  we 
find  the  indignant  assertion,  that  those  who  bear  the  dignity 
of  the  primacy  are  God's  worst  persecutors.1  In  the  work 
"  De  squaloribus  Romance  curice "  various  well-founded 
complaints  were  adduced,  together  with  much  that  was 
incorrect  and  exaggerated.  The  book  "  De  ruina  ecclesice  " 
(see  above,  p.  50)  contained  accusations  against  the  Popes 
and  the  government  of  the  Church  couched  in  rude  and 
violent  language,  and  these  too  gained  new  and  stronger 
significance  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  and  commencement 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  We  actually  read  therein  that 

1  Lib.  ],  c.  67,  ed.  Venet.,  1560,  fol.  90',  col.  1  :  "  Heu,  Domine 
Deus,  quia  ipsi  sunt  in  tua  perseculione  pri/ni,  qui  videntur  in  ecclesia 
tua  primatum  diligcre  et  regere  principatum" 


56 

the  number  of  the  righteous  in  the  Church  is  diminutive 
compared  with  that  of  the  wicked.1 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  state  of  things,  so  far  as  it  was 
known  from  the  above-mentioned  books,  or  from  observa- 
tion or  rumour,  was  busily  and  impatiently  discussed  in  the 
company  frequented  by  Luther  at  the  University  of  Witten- 
berg. What  Luther  had  himself  seen  at  Rome  must  have 
still  further  contributed  to  increase  the  bitterness  among 
his  friends. 

When  the  Monk  of  Wittenberg  openly  commenced  his 
attacks  on  the  Papacy,  it  became  apparent  how  far  the 
disorders  just  alluded  to  had  prepared  the  way  for  his  plans. 
It  was  clear  that  all  the  currents  adverse  to  the  Papacy  were, 
so  to  speak,  waiting  for  the  coming  of  one  man,  who  should 
unchain  them  with  his  powerful  hand.  Amongst  those  who 
hitherto  had  been  faithful  adherents  of  the  Church,  Luther 
found  combustible  material — social,  moral  and  political— 
heaped  up  so  high  that  a  stunning  result  was  not  surprising. 
Had  there  arisen  a  saint  like  St.  Bernard,  on  whose  words 
the  world  of  the  Middle  Ages  had  hung,  with  the  Divine  gift 
of  teaching  and  writing  as  the  times  demanded,  who  can  say 
what  course  events  would  have  taken  ?  But  Luther  arrived 
on  the  scene  with  his  terrible,  mighty  voice,  pressed  all 
the  elements  of  the  storm  into  his  service,  and,  launching 
a  defiance  of  which  the  world  had  never  before  heard 
the  like,  succeeded  in  winning  an  immense  success  for  the 
standard  he  had  raised.2 


1  Cap.  39  sq.  in  Herm.  von  der  Hardt,  "  Magnum  cecum.  Constant. 
Condi.,"  1,  3,  col.  41  sq. 

8  The  author  has  thought  it  necessary  to  keep  within  limits  in 
treating  of  the  state  of  those  times  in  order  not  to  be  led  too  far  from 
Luther's  own  personality.  In  the  course  of  the  work,  the  circum- 
stances of  the  time  and  the  prevailing  social  conditions,  so  far  as  they 
had  a  determining  influence  on  Luther,  will  be  considered  in  their 
own  place.  Such  a  separate  treatment  may,  at  the  same  time,  acquaint 
one  better  with  the  facts  than  if  a  long  and  exhaustive  review  of  the 
public  conditions  were  to  be  given  here.  With  regard  to  the  history 
of  the  preliminaries  of  the  schism  there  already  exist  many  works 
dealing  either  generally  with  those  times  or  with  various  subjects 
and  districts  ;  these  works,  however,  vary  much  in  merit.  While 
mentioning  these  wre  would  merely  in  passing  utter  a  warning  against 
generalisations  and  a  priori  constructions  ;  especially  must  we  be  on 
our  guard  against  either  looking  at  things  in  so  dark  a  light  as  to  make 
Luther's  intervention  appear  absolutely  necessary,  or  judging  too 
favourably  of  the  conditions  previous  to  the  religious  struggle.  In 
the  latter  case  we  come  into  collision  on  the  one  hand  with  numerous 


LUTHER  ON   BISHOPS  57 

Luther  from  the  very  outset  of  his  career  was  too  liberal 
in  his  blame  of  the  customs  and  conditions  in  the  Church 
which  happened  to  meet  with  his  disapproval. 

Scarcely  had  he  finished  his  course  of  studies  as  a  learner 
than  he  already  began  to  Avax  eloquent  against  various 
abuses.  In  his  characteristic  love  of  exaggeration  of 
language  he  did  not  fear  to  use  the  sharpest  epithets,  nor  to 
magnify  the  evil,  whether  in  his  academic  lectures  or  in  the 
pulpit,  or  in  his  letters  and  writings.  He  wrote,  for  instance, 
to  Spalatin  in  1516  to  dissuade  the  Elector  of  Saxony, 
Frederick  the  Wise,  from  promoting  Staupitz  to  a  bishopric  : 
he  who  becomes  a  bishop  in  these  days  falls  into  the  most 
evil  of  company,  all  the  wickedness  of  Greece,  Rome  and 
Sodom  were  to  be  found  in  the  bishops  ;  Spalatin  should 
compare  the  carryings-on  of  the  present  bishops  with  those 
of  the  bishops  of  Christian  antiquity  ;  now  a  pastor  of  souls 
was  considered  quite  exemplary  if  he  merely  pursued  his 
worldly  business  and  built  up  for  himself  with  his  riches  an 
insatiable  hell.1 

In  his  first  lectures  at  Wittenberg  he  complains  that 
"  neither  monasteries  nor  colleges,  nor  Cathedral  churches 
will  in  any  sort  accept  discipline."  2  The  clergy,  he  says,  in 
another  place,  generalising  after  the  fashion  common  among 


data  which  reveal  with  absolute  certainty  the  existence  of  great  cor- 
ruption in  the  Church,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  we  lose  sight  of  the  causes 
which  alone  offer  a  satisfactory  historical  explanation  of  the  great 
spread  of  the  schism.  Luther  himself — and  it  was  this  which  decided 
us  to  abbreviate  our  survey — before  the  public  dispute  commenced, 
was  far  from  possessing,  in  his  quiet  cloister,  so  clear  a  view  of  the  condi- 
tions of  the  time  as  a  learned  historian  is  now  able  to  obtain.  The  great 
world  of  Germany  and  Europe  did  not,  as  we  know,  reveal  itself  so 
clearly  to  the  Monk  and  Professor  as  the  little  world  of  Wittenberg, 
and  his  few  months  of  travel  did  not  make  him  a  judge  of  the  world 
and  of  men.  The  dark  and  bright  elements  of  ecclesiastical  and 
popular  life  were  seen  by  him  only  superficially  and  partially.  In 
laying  more  stress  on  some  traits  than  on  others,  he  allowed  himself 
to  be  influenced  less  by  any  weighing  of  actual  facts  than  by  his  ardent 
feelings.  Certain  features  of  the  times  appear  to  have  remained  quite 
strange  to  him,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  in  more  recent  de- 
scriptions of  the  influences  at  work  in  him,  they  are  made  to  play  a 
great  part  :  so,  for  instance,  Gallicanism  with  its  anti-monarchical 
conception  of  the  Church,  or  the  philosophy  of  the  ultra-realists. 
With  respect  to  Nominalism,  more  particularly  in  its  Occamistic  form, 
and  to  mysticism,  the  case  is  absolutely  different.  This  will,  however, 
be  discussed  below  (chaps,  iv.— v.). 

1  On  June  8,  1516,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  41. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  444. 


58  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

preachers,  should  be  the  eyes  of  the  Church,  but  to-day  they 
do  not  direct  the  body,  i.e.  the  Faithful,  for  they  are 
blinded  :  they  are  the  soul,  but  they  do  not  give  life,  but 
rather  kill  by  their  deadly  example  ;  about  nothing  do 
they  trouble  less  than  about  souls.1  In  similar  language 
he,  in  these  lectures,  represents  the  bishops  and  priests  as 
simply  "  full  of  the  most  abominable  unchastity  "  ;  accord- 
ing to  him,  they  bring  to  the  pulpit  nothing  but  "  their  views 
and  fables,  nothing  but  masquerading  and  buffoonery," 
so  that  the  Church  can  do  nothing  but  cry  aloud  over  the 
misery  in  which  it  is  sunk.  "  The  strength  of  her  youth  has 
forsaken  her."2 

One  of  the  earliest  portions  of  Luther's  correspondence 
which  has  been  preserved  and  which  takes  us  back  to  his  little 
world  at  Wittenberg,  throws  a  clearer  light  on  his  character 
at  that  time.  It  deals  with  an  unpleasant  dispute  with  his 
brother  monks  at  Erfurt,  which  he  became  involved  in 
owing  to  his  having  taken  his  doctorate  at  Wittenberg 
instead  of  at  Erfurt.  The  Erfurt  monastery  reproached  him 
with  a  serious  infringement  of  the  rules  and  disrespect  for 
the  Theological  Faculty  there  ;  he  had,  they  said,  entered 
the  teaching  Corporation  of  Erfurt  in  virtue  of  the  oath 
which  he  had  taken  in  the  customary  manner  on  his  appoint- 
ment as  Sententiarius,  and  was  therefore  under  strict 
obligation  to  take  his  degree  of  Doctor  in  this  Faculty  and 
not  elsewhere.  Other  unknown  charges  were  also  made 
against  him,  but  were  speedily  withdrawn.  It  is  highly 
probable  that  the  tension  between  Observantines  and 
Conventuals  increased  the  misunderstanding. 

Nathin,  the  Erfurt  Augustinian,  first  wrote  a  rather  tactless 
letter  to  Luther  about  it  all,  as  it  would  appear  in  the  name  of 
the  council  of  the  monastery.  Luther  was  extremely  angry  and 
allowed  his  excitement  free  play.  He  first  expresses  his  surprise 
in  two  letters  to  the  Prior  and  the  council,  and  was  about  to 
despatch  a  third  when  he  learnt  that  the  accusations  against  him, 
with  the  exception  of  that  regarding  his  doctorate,  had  been  with- 
drawn. While  Nathin's  letter  and  also  the  two  passionate 
replies  of  the  young  Doctor  have  been  lost,  two  other  letters  of 
the  latter  regarding  the  matter  exist,  and  are  professedly  letters 
of  excuse.  The  first  is  in  reality  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  rather 
the  opposite.  In  this  letter,  dated  June  16,  1514,  and  addressed 

1  "  Werke,"  ibid.,  3,  p.  170. 

2  "  Werke,"  ibid.,  3,  p.  216. 


LUTHER   AND   NATHIN  59 

to  the  Prior  and  the  council,  Luther  to  begin  with  complains 
vehemently  of  the  evil  reports  against  his  person  which,  accord- 
ing to  his  information,  some  of  those  he  was  addressing  at  Erfurt 
had  circulated  previously.  Nathin's  letter  had,  however,  been 
the  last  straw.  "  This  letter,"  he  says,  which  was  written  in  the 
name  of  all,  angered  him  so  much  with  its  lies  and  its  provoking, 
poisonous  scorn,  that  "  I  had  almost  poured  out  the  vials  of  my 
wrath  and  indignation  on  his  head  and  the  whole  monastery,  as 
Master  Paltz  did."  "They  had  probably  received  the  two  "  stupid 
letters  "  ;  as  however  the  other  charges  ha4.been  withdrawn,  he 
would  hold  the  majority  of  those  he  was  addressing  as  excused  ; 
they  must  now,  on  their  part,  forget  any  hurt  they  had  felt  at  his 
previous  replies  ;  "  Lay  all  that  I  have  done,"  these  are  his  words, 
"  to  the  account  of  the  furious  epistle  of  Master  Nathin,  for  my 
anger  was  only  too  well  justified.  Now,  however,  I  hear  still 
worse  things  of  this  man,  viz.  that  he  accuses  me  everywhere  of 
being  a  dishonourable  perjurer  on  account  of  the  oath  to  the 
Faculty  which  I  am  supposed  to  have  taken  and  not  kept."  He 
goes  on  to  explain  that  he  had  been  guilty  of  no  such  crime, 
for  the  Biblical  lectures  at  the  commencement  of  which  he  was 
supposed  to  have  taken  the  oath,  and  at  which,  it  is  true,  in 
accordance  with  the  customs  of  the  University,  such  an  oath  was 
generally  taken,  had  not  been  begun  by  him  at  Erfurt  ;  at  his 
opening  lecture  on  the  Sentences  in  that  town  he  had,  so  far  as  he 
remembers,  taken  no  oath,  nor  could  he  recall  having  ever  taken 
any  oath  in  the  Faculty  at  Erfurt.  He  closes  with  an  expression 
of  respect  and  gratitude  to  the  Erfurt  Faculty.  Though  he  was 
the  injured  party,  he  was  calm  and  contented  and  joyful,  for  he 
had  deserved  much  worse  of  God  :  they  too  should  lay  their 
bitterness  aside,  "  as  God  has  clearly  willed  my  departure  (ex- 
corporatio)  from  Erfurt,  and  we  must  not  withstand  God."1  This 
letter  and  Luther's  previous  steps  cannot  be  regarded  as  giving 
proof  of  a  harmoniously  attuned  disposition.  He  may  have  been 
in  the  right  in  the  matter  of  the  oath,  a  question  of  which  it  is 
difficult  to  judge.  It  was  not,  however,  very  surprising  that  the 
Erfurt  monks  took  steps  to  force  Luther  to  make  more  satisfactory 
amends  to  the  Faculty  than  the  strange  letter  of  excuse  given 
above.  It  is  plain  that  under  pressure  of  some  higher  authority 
invoked  by  them,  a  second  letter,  this  time  of  more  correct 
character,  was  despatched  by  the  Wittenberg  Doctor.  In  judging 
of  this  academic  dispute,  we  must  bear  in  mind  the  store  that 
was  set  in  those  days  on  University  traditions. 

The  second  letter  in  question,  dated  December  21,  1514,  is 
addressed  to  the  "  excellent  Fathers  and  Gentlemen,  the  Dean 
and  other  Doctors  of  the  Theological  Faculty  of  Studies  at 
Erfurt  "  and  in  the  very  first  words  shows  itself  to  be  a  humble 
apology  and  request  for  pardon.  It  contains  further  information 
regarding  the  affair.  He  begs  them  at  least  not  to  deem  him  guilty 
of  a  fault  committed  knowingly  and  out  of  malice  ;  if  he  had  done 
anything  unseemly,  at  least  it  was  unintentionally  ("  extra  dolum 

1  "  Brieiwechsel,"   1,  p.   17. 


60  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

et  conscientiam  ") ;  he  begs  them  to  dispense  and  ratify,  to  supply 
what  is  wanting  and  to  remit,  if  not  the  penalty,  at  least  the 
fault.1 

We  learn  nothing  further  about  the  dispute.  The  negotia- 
tions did  not  lead  to  the  renewal  of  the  good  relations  with 
Erfurt,  which  had  been  interrupted  by  his  brusque  departure. 
The  people  of  Erfurt  were  amongst  the  first  to  object  to  the 
new,  so-called  Augustinism  and  Paulinism  of  the  Witten- 
berg Professor. 


1  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  23  ft. 


HARBINGERS    OF    CHANGE 

1.  Sources,  Old  and  New 

THE  history  of  Luther's  inward  development  during  his 
first  years  at  Wittenberg  up  to  1517,  is,  to  a  certain  extent, 
rather  obscure.  The  study  of  deep  psychological  processes 
must  always  be  reckoned  amongst  the  most  complex  of 
problems,  and  in  our  case  the  difficulty  is  increased  by  the 
nature  of  Luther's  own  statements  with  regard  to  himself. 
These  belong  without  exception  to  his  later  years,  are 
uncertain  and  contradictory  in  character,  and  in  nearly 
every  instance  represent  views  influenced  by  his  contro- 
versies and  such  as  he  was  wont  to  advocate  in  his  old  age. 
Thanks  to  more  recent  discoveries,  however,  we  are  now 
possessed  of  works  written  by  Luther  in  his  youth  which 
supply  us  with  better  information.  By  a  proper  use  of  these, 
we  are  able  to  obtain  a  much  clearer  picture  of  his  develop- 
ment than  was  formerly  possible. 

Many  false  ideas  which  were  once  current  have  now  been 
dispelled  ;  more  especially  there  can  no  longer  be  any 
question  of  the  customary  Protestant  view,  namely,  that 
the  Monk  of  Wittenberg  was  first  led  to  his  new  doctrine 
through  some  unusual  inward  religious  experience  by  which 
he  attained  the  joyful  assurance  of  salvation  by  faith  alone, 
and  not  by  means  of  the  good  works  of  Popery  and  monas- 
ticism.  This  so-called  inner  experience,  which  used  to  be 
placed  in  the  forefront  of  his  change  of  opinions,  as  a 
"  Divine  Experience,"  as  shown  below,  must  disappear 
altogether  from  history.1  Objection  must  equally  be  taken 

1  Wilhelm  Braun  ("  Die  Bedeutung  der  Concupiscenz  in  Luthers 
Leben  und  Lehre,"  Berlin,  1908)  commences  chapter  ii.  ("  Luther's 
Experience  in  the  Monastery,"  p.  19)  as  follows  :  "  It  is  impossible 
to  speak  in  the  strict  sense  of  any  religious  experience  which  Luther 
had  in  the  monastery.  It  was  no  catastrophe  which,  with  elemental 
force,  brought  about  the  Reformer's  change.  Any  dramatic  element 

61 


62  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

to  some  of  the  views  with  which  Catholics  have  been  wont 
to  explain  Luther's  apostasy.  The  path  Luther  followed, 
though  subject  to  numerous  and  varied  influences,  is  now 
seen  to  be  much  less  complicated  than  was  hitherto  supposed. 

Two  results  already  brought  to  light  by  other  authors 
are  now  confirmed.  First,  the  process  of  his  falling  away 
from  the  Church's  teaching  was  already  accomplished  in 
Luther's  mind  before  he  began  the  dispute  about  Indulgences 
with  Tetzel ;  secondly,  a  certain  moral  change,  the  outlines 
of  which  are  clearly  marked,  wrent  hand  in  hand  with  his 
theological  views,  indeed,  if  anything,  preceded  them  ;  the 
signs  of  such  an  ethical  change  are  apparent  in  his  growing 
indifference  to  good  works,  and  to  the  aims  and  rules  of 
conventual  life,  and  in  the  quite  extraordinary  self- 
confidence  he  displayed,  more  especially  when  disputes 
arose. 

Characteristic  of  the  ethical  side  of  his  nature  are  the 
remarks  and  marginal  annotations  we  have  of  his,  which 
were  published  by  Buchwald  in  1893  ;  these  notes  were 
written  by  Luther  in  many  of  the  books  he  made  use  of  in 
his  early  days  as  theological  lecturer  at  Erfurt  (1509-10). 
These  books  are  the  oldest  available  sources  for  a  correct 
estimation  of  his  intellectual  activity.  They  were  found  in 
the  Ratsschul-Library  at  Zwickau.  Of  special  interest  is 
a  volume  containing  various  writings  of  St.  Augustine,  and 
a  copy  of  the  Sentences  of  Peter  Lombard,  which  is  of 
great  importance  on  account  of  the  notes.  The  running 

is  entirely  wanting.  There  was  in  his  case  no  Damascus.  It  is  a 
useless  task  to  attempt,  as  has  been  done  again  and  again,  to  deter- 
mine the  year  and  the  day  on  which  the  actual  reforming  flame  burnt 
up  in  Luther's  soul."  The  author  puts  on  one  side  Kostlin-Kawerau's 
long  descriptions  of  the  gradual  ripening  of  the  Reformer,  his  early 
comprehension  of  the  Pauline  writings,  due  to  his  inward  struggles, 
etc.  He  declares  Luther's  life  "  cannot  be  written  so  long  as  the 
beginnings  of  the  Reformer  and  the  growth  of  his  tenets  have  not  yet 
been  made  clear.  That  we  are  here  still  in  the  dark  is  proved,  with 
regard  to  Luther's  psychology,  by  his  latest  Biographies."  This 
Protestant  theologian,  who  works  more  independently  than  others, 
is  quite  resigned,  "in  view  of  the  multitude  of  open  questions  raised 
by  Luther's  early  development,  to  see  the  fruits  and  tangible 
results  of  Luther  research  ripen  slowly.  Our  most  pressing  duty  is," 
he  says  rightly,  "  to  supply  the  material  while  deprecating  rash  con- 
clusions "  ;  without  an  acquaintance  with  the  theology  of  the  Middle 
Ages  there  is  no  possibility  of  understanding  Luther  :  "in  this  respect 
Denifle's  '  Luther  und  Luthertum '  furnished  a  wholesome  though 
painful  lesson  to  Protestant  theologians  "  (p.  v.  f.). 


LECTURES   ON  THE   PSALMS         63 

commentary  in  Luther's  early  handwriting  shows  his  great 
industry,  enables  us  to  see  what  especially  impressed  him, 
and  betrays  also  his  marvellous  belief  in  himself  as  well  as 
his  stormy,  unbridled  temper. 

Of  Luther's  letters  written  previous  to  1514  only  five 
remain,  and  are  of  comparatively  little  historical  interest. 
Of  the  year  1515  there  is  only  one,  of  1516  there  are  nineteen, 
of  1517  already  twenty-one,  and  they  increase  in  importance 
as  well  as  in  number. 

In  1513  he  began,  at  Wittenberg  University,  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  Psalms,  which  has  been  known  since  1876, 
and  continued  those  lectures  up  to  1515  or  1516.  Following 
his  lively  and  practical  bent,  he  refers  therein  to  the  most 
varied  questions  of  theology  and  the  religious  life,  and 
occasionally  even  introduces  contemporary  matters,  so  that 
these  lectures  afford  many  opportunities  by  which  to  judge 
of  his  development  and  mode  of  thought.  First  the  scholia, 
which  till  then  had  been  known  only  in  part,  were  edited  in 
a  somewhat  cumbersome  form  by  Seidemann,  then  a  better 
edition  by  Kawerau,  containing  both  the  scholia  and  the 
glosses,  followed  in  1885.1  In  dividing  this  exegetical  work 
into  scholia  and  glosses,  Luther  was  following  the  traditional 
method  of  the  Middle  Ages.  The  glosses  are  very  short,  as 
was  customary  ;  they  were  written  by  Luther  between  the 
lines  of  the  text  itself  or  in  the  margin  and  explained  the 
words  and  grammatical  construction  ;  on  the  sense  they 
touch  only  in  the  most  meagre  fashion.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  detailed  scholia  seek  to  unfold  the  meaning  of  the 
verses  and  often  expand  into  free  digressions.  In  addition 
to  the  glosses  and  the  scholia  on  the  Psalms,  Kawerau's 
edition  also  includes  the  preparatory  notes,  written  by 
Luther  in  a  copy  of  the  first  edition  of  the  "  Psalterium 
quincuplex  "  of  Faber  Stapulensis  (Paris,  1509),  which,  like 
the  glosses  and  scholia,  attest  both  the  learning  of  their 
author  and  the  peculiar  tendency  of  his  mind.  Luther  used 
for  his  text  the  Latin  Vulgate,  making  a  very  sparing  use  of 
his  rudimentary  Hebrew.  The  glosses  and  the  scholia  were, 

1  J.  K.  Seidemann,  "  Luthers  erste  und  alteste  Vortesungen  iiber 
die  Psalmen,  1513  bis  1516,"  2  volumes,  Dresden,  1876.  Cp.  Hering  in 
"  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken,"  1877,  p.  633  ff.  ;  G.  Kawerau's 
edition  of  Luther's  works,  Weim.  ed.,  volumes  iii.  and  iv.,  also 
volume  ix.,  pp.  116-21.  He  gives  the  title  better,  viz.  "  Dictata  super 
Psalterium." 


64  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

however,  intended  chiefly  for  the  professor  himself  ;  to  the 
students  who  attended  his  biblical  lectures  Luther  was  in 
the  habit  of  giving  a  short  dictation  comprising  a  summary  of 
what  he  had  prepared,  and  then,  with  the  assistance  of  his 
glosses  and  scholia,  dilating  more  fully  on  the  subject. 
Scholars'  notebooks  containing  such  dictations  given  by 
Luther  in  early  days  together  with  his  fuller  explanation 
are  in  existence,  but  have  never  been  printed. 

After  the  Psalms,  the  lectures  of  our  Wittenberg  "  Doctor 
of  the  Bible  "  dealt  with  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
This  work- — of  such  supreme  importance  for  the  compre- 
hension of  Luther's  spiritual  development- — with  its  glosses 
and  scholia  complete,  was  published  only,  in  1908  in  Picker's 
edition.1  The  lectures  on  the  Book  of  Judges,  edited  in 
1 884  by  Buchwald  and  then  again  by  Kawerau  as  a  work  of 
Luther  supposed  to  have  been  delivered  in  1516,  are, 
according  to  Denifle,  not  Luther's  at  all ;  they  are  largely 
borrowed  from  St.  Augustine,  and,  at  the  very  most,  are  at 
redaction  by  another  hand  of  the  notes  of  one  of  Luther's 
pupils.2  Transcripts  of  Luther's  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to 
Titus,  and  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  delivered  in  1516  and 
1517  respectively,  are  still  lying  unedited  in  the  Vatican 
Library.3  On  the  other  hand,  his  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians  (1516-17)  were  brought  out  by  himself  in 
1519. 

Further  light  may  be  shed  on  them  by  the  publication  of 
a  hitherto  unedited  student's  notebook,  discovered  at 
Cologne  in  1877. 

To  the  years  1514-20  belongs  a  rich  mine  of  information 
in  the  sermons  preached  by  Luther  in  the  monastery  church 
of  the  Augustinians,  or  in  the  parish  church  of  the  town. 
They  consist  of  more  or  less  detailed  notes,  written  in  Latin, 

1  "  Anfange  reformatorischer  Bibelauslegung."     Eel.  by  Joh.  Ficker, 
1    volume.      "  Luthers   Vorlesung   iiber    den    Romerbrief,    1515-16," 
Leipzig,  1908.     See  below,  chapter  vi.,  1. 

2  Kawerau's  edition   in  the  Weim.  ed.,  volume  iv.     According  to 
the  editor  Luther  commenced  the  lectures  in  1516  ;  Kostlin,  "Luthers 
Theologie,"1  prefers  the  year  1517;    in  the  2nd  ed.  the  year   1518. 
Denifle,  "  Luther  und  Luthertum,"  1,  p.  47  ff.  ;    I2,  p.  x.  f.     Walther 
Kohler  in  "Die  Christ!.  Welt,"  1904,  p.  203,  says:  "Denifles  scharfsin- 
nige  Erorterung  iiber  die  angeblichen  Vorlesungen  zum  Richterbuch 
wird,  denke  ich,  im  wesentlichen  Beifall  finden.     Es  ist  ihm  hier  die 
gliickliche  Entdeckung  gelungen,  dass  ganze  Stiicke  angeblich  Luther- 
schen  Eigentums  wortliche  Entlehnungen  aus  Augustin  sind." 

3  See  Ficker,  "  Luthers  Vorlesung  iiber  den  Romerbrief,"  p.  29  ff. 


HIS   SERMONS  65 

on  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  of  the  Sundays  and  Feast  days  ; 
some  are  the  merest  sketches,  but  all,  as  we  may  assume, 
were  written  down  by  himself  for  his  own  use,  or  to  be  handed 
to  others.1  Chronologically,  they  are  headed  by  three 
sermons  for  Christmas  time,  probably  dating  from  1515. 
The  exact  dating  of  these  older  sermons  is  sometimes  rather 
difficult,  and  will  have  to  be  undertaken  in  the  future,  the 
Weimar  edition  of  Luther's  works  having  made  no  attempt 
at  this.  The  sermons  were  all  of  them  printed  in  1720,  with 
the  exception  of  two  printed  only  in  1886.  A  complete 
discourse  held  at  a  synodal  meeting  at  Leitzkau,  near  Zerbst, 
and  printed  in  1708,  stands  apart,  and  probably  belongs  to 
1515,  a  year  of  the  greatest  consequence  in  Luther's  develop- 
ment. To  the  same  year  belongs,  without  a  doubt,  the 
lecture  delivered  at  a  chapter  of  the  Order,  which  may 
aptly  be  entitled  :  "  Against  the  little  Saints."  (See  below, 
p.  69.) 

The  first  of  the  works  written  and  published  by  Luther 
himself  was  of  a  homiletic  nature  ;  this  was  his  Commentary 
on  the  Seven  Penitential  Psalms,  published  in  1517.  To  the 
same  year,  or  the  next,  belong  his  expositions  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer  and  Ten  Commandments,  consisting  of  excerpts 
from  his  sermons  sent  by  him  to  the  press.  The  celebrated 
ninety-five  Theses,  which  led  directly  to  the  dispute  on 
Indulgences,  followed  next  in  point  of  time. 

Just  as  the  Theses  referred  to  throw  light  upon  his 
development,2  so  also,  and  to  an  even  greater  extent,  do 
the  Disputations  which  took  place  at  academic  festivals 
about  that  same  period.  In  these  Disputations  propositions 
drawn  up  either  by  himself  or  by  his  colleagues,  were 
defended  by  his  pupils  under  his  own  direction.  They  dis- 
play his  theological  views  as  he  was  wont  to  vent  them  at 
home,  and  are  therefore  all  the  more  natural  and  reliable. 
Of  such  Disputations  we  have  that  of  Bartholomew  Bern- 
hardi  in  1516  "  On  the  Powers  and  the  Will  of  Man  without 
Grace  "  ;  that  of  Francis  Gimther  in  1517  "  Concerning 
Grace  and  Nature,"  also  entitled  "  Against  the  Theology  of 
the  Schoolmen,"  and  the  Heidelberg  Disputation  of  1518, 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  and  "  Opp.  lat.  var.,"  1. 

2  Cp.  Th.  Brieger,   "  Die  Gliederung  der  95  Thesen  Luthers  "  (in 
the  "  Festschrift  "  in  honour  of  Max  Lenz),  with  "  Studien  und  Ver- 
suchen  zur  neueren  Geschichte,"  1  Abh. 


66  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

with  Leonard  Beyer  as  defendant  of  twenty-eight  philo- 
sophical and  twelve  theological  theses.  In  the  latter  theses 
there  are  also  various  notes  in  Luther's  handwriting. 

Of  Luther's  writings,  dating  from  the  strenuous  year 
1518,  some  of  which  are  in  Latin  and  others  in  German 
and  which  throw  some  light  on  his  previous  development, 
we  may  mention  in  their  chronological  order  :  the  sermon 
on  "  Indulgence  and  Grace,"  the  detailed  "  Resolutions  " 
on  the  Indulgence  Theses,  the  discourse  on  Penance,  the 
"  Asterisci  "  against  Eck,  the  pamphlet  "  Freedom  of  the 
Sermon  on  Indulgence  and  Grace,"  an  exposition  of  Psalm  ex., 
the  reply  to  Prierias,  the  sermon  on  the  power  of  excom- 
munication, then  the  report  of  his  trial  at  Augsburg  and 
the  sermon  on  the  "  Threefold  Righteousness."  To  these 
we  must  add  his  complete  edition  of  "  Thcologia  Deutsch," 
an  anonymous  mystical  pamphlet  of  the  fourteenth  century 
a  portion  of  which  he  had  brought  out  in  1516  with  a  preface 
of  his  own.1 

These  are  the  sources  which  Luther  himself  has  left  behind 
him  and  from  which  the  inner  history  of  his  apostasy  and  of 
his  new  theology  must  principally  be  taken.  The  further 
evidence  derivable  from  his  later  wrorks,  his  sermons,  letters 
and  Table-Talk,  will  be  dealt  with  in  due  course. 

Only  at  the  end  of  1518  was  his  new  teaching  practically 
complete.  At  that  time  a  new  and  final  element  had  been 
added,  the  doctrine  of  absolute  individual  certainty  of 
salvation  by  "  Fiducial  Faith."  This  was  regarded  by 
Luther  and  his  followers  as  the  corner-stone  of  evangelical 
Christianity  now  once  again  recovered.  At  the  commence- 
ment of  1519,  we  find  it  expressed  in  the  new  Commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (a  new  and  enlarged  edition 
of  the  earlier  lectures),  and  in  the  new  Commentary  on  the 
Psalms,  which  was  printed  simultaneously.  Hence  Luther's 
whole  process  of  development  up  to  that  time  may  be 
divided  into  two  stages  by  the  doctrine  of  the  assurance 
of  salvation ;  in  the  first,  up  to  1517,  this  essential  element 
was  still  wanting  :  the  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  belief 
in  personal  justification  and  future  salvation  does  not 

1  The  writings  and  theses  referred  to  appear  in  the  two  first  volumes 
of  the  Weim.  ed.  and  of  the  "  Opp.  lat."  The  "  Theologia  Deutsch  " 
has  recently  been  reprinted  by  Mandel  (1908)  from  Luther's  text. 


THE   OBSERVANTINES  67 

appear,  and  for  this  reason  Luther  himself,  later  on,  speaks 
of  this  time  as  a  period  of  unstable,  and  in  part  despairing, 
search.1  The  second  stage  covers  the  years  1517-18,  and 
commences  with  the  Resolutions  and  the  Augsburg  trial, 
where  we  find  the  Professor  gradually  acquiring  that 
absolute  certainty  of  salvation  to  which  he  finally  attained 
through  an  illumination  which  he  was  wont  to  regard  as 
God's  own  work.2 

In  the  next  section  we  deal  merely  with  the  first  stage, 
which  we  shall  seek  to  elucidate  from  the  psychological, 
theological  and  ethical  standpoint. 

2.  Luther's  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  (1513-15).     Dispute 
with  the  Observantines  and  the  "Self-righteous" 

Presages  of  the  storm  which  Luther  was  about  to  raise 
were  visible  in  his  first  course  of  lectures  on  the  Psalms 
given  at  Wittenberg.  With  regard  to  several  particularly 
important  parts  of  his  work  on  the  Psalms,  it  would  be 
desirable  to  determine  to  what  precise  time  during  the  period 
1513-15  they  belong  ;  but  this  is  a  matter  of  considerable 
difficulty.  The  polemics  they  contain  against  the  so-called 
"  Saints  by  works,"  the  "  Self-righteous  "  and  the  Obser- 
vantines, the  last  of  which  must  here  be  considered  first, 
seem  to  belong  to  the  earlier  part  of  the  period.  In  particular 
his  animus  against  the  Observantines,  traces  of  which  are 
plentiful,  seems  to  have  been  of  early  growth.  It  also 
deserves  more  attention  than  has  hitherto  been  bestowed 
on  it,  on  account  of  its  psychological  and  theological  influence 
on  Luther.3 

Under  the  Observantines  Luther  in  his  Commentary  on 
the  Psalms  refers,  openly  or  covertly,  to  the  members  of  the 
German  Augustinian  Congregation,  i.e.  to  those  who 
adhered  to  that  party  to  which,  since  his  return  from  Rome, 
he  had  been  opposed. 

1  See  below,  chapter  vi.,  2  ff. 

2  See  below,  chapter  x.,  1—2. 

3  W.  Braun,  "  Die  Bedeutung  der  Concupiscenz  in  Luthers  Leben 
und  Lehre,"  p.  22  :    "  We  learn  nothing  of  the  dispute  then  going  on 
between  the  Conventuals  and  the  Observantines,  the  laxer  and  stricter 
exponents  of  the  monastic  Rule  ;    and  yet  Luther  may  have  experi- 
enced their  differences  in  his  own  person  ;    his  second  removal  from 
Erfurt  to  Wittenberg  in  1511  was  perhaps  a  disciplinary  act,  because 
he  and  Lang  stood  on  the  side  of  Staupitz  and  against  the  Erfurt 
Council.     Probably  Luther  went  to  Rome  about  this  very  matter." 


68  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

No  sooner  had  Luther,  as  Cochlacus  remarked  (p.  38), 
"  deserted  to  Staupitz  "  and  begun  to  defend  his  opinions, 
the  aim  of  which  was  to  surrender  the  privileged  position 
of  the  Congregation  and  the  stringency  of  the  Rule,  than  his 
fiery  temper  led  him  to  constitute  himself  the  champion  of 
the  monasteries  with  whose  cause  he  had  allied  himself, 
particularly  that  of  Wittenberg  ;  indeed,  he  was,  if  not 
actually  the  first,  one  of  the  earliest  to  take  up  the  cudgels 
on  their  behalf.  The  mission  to  Rome  with  which  he  had 
previously  been  entrusted  lent  him  special  authority,  and 
his  expert  knowledge  of  the  case  seemed  to  entitle  him  to  a 
voice  on  the  subject.  To  this  was  added  the  importance  of 
his  position  at  the  University,  his  reputation  as  a  talented 
and  eloquent  lecturer,  and  his  power  as  a  preacher.  His 
sociability  drew  many  to  him,  especially  among  the  young, 
and  his  readiness  of  tongue  marked  him  out  as  a  real  party 
man. 

In  his  lectures  on  the  Psalms  his  fiery  nature  led  him  to  attack 
sharply  the  Observantines,  whom  he  frequently  mentions  by 
name  ;  even  in  the  lecture-room  his  aim  was  to  prejudice  the 
young  Augustihians  who  were  his  audience  against  the  defenders 
of  the  traditional  constitution  ;  instead  of  encouraging  the  rising 
generation  of  monks  to  strive  after  perfection  on  the  tried  and 
proved  lines  of  their  Congregation,  he  broke  out  into  declamatory 
attacks  against  those  monks  who  took  their  vocation  seriously 
as  they  received  it  from  their  predecessors,  and  abused  them  as 
Pharisees  and  hypocrites  ;  according  to  him,  they  were  puffed  up 
by  their  carnal  mind  because  they  esteemed  "  fasting  and  lengthy 
prayers." 

There  are  Pharisees,  he  cries,  even  now  who  extol  fasting  and 
long-drawn  prayer ;  "  they  make  rules,"  but  "  their  zeal  is 
directed  against  the  Lord."  There  are  many  in  the  Church  who 
"  dispute  about  ceremonies  and  are  enthusiastic  for  the  hollow- 
ness  of  exterior  observances."  "  I  am  acquainted  with  still  more 
obstinate  hypocrites." 1  "  It  is  to  be  feared  that  all  Observantines, 
all  exempted,  and  privileged  religious,  must  be  reckoned  among 
those  puffed  up  in  their  carnal  mind.  How  harmful  they  are  to 

Concerning  his  removal  and  journey  to  Rome,  see  above,  pp.  29,  38.  We 
learn,  it  is  true,  no  details  about  the  dispute  between  the  monasteries,  and 
this  is  perhaps  what  Braun  means ;  but  its  continuance  is,  to  my  mind, 
apparent  from  Luther's  statements,  as  well  as  from  the  leading  part 
he  took  against  the  Observantines.  Ficker  ("  Luthers  Vorlesung  iiber 
den  Romerbrief,"  1908,  p.  xcvii.)  only  mentions  the  Observantines 
cursorily,  saying  that  Luther  did  not  seem  much  attached  to  them. 
Hering  ("  Theolog.  Studien  und  Kritiken,"  1877,  p.  627)  offers  little 
of  interest. 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  61. 


ON   SLANDER  69 

the  Church  has  not  yet  become  clear,  but  the  fact  remains  and 
will  make  itself  apparent  in  time.  If  we  ask  why  they  insist  upon 
isolation,  they  reply :  On  account  of  the  protection  of  the 
cloistral  discipline.  But  that  is  the  light  of  an  angel  of  Satan."1 

The  following  attack  on  the  Observantines  in  the  lectures 
on  the  Psalms  is  on  the  same  lines  :  There  are  plenty  of  "  men 
proud  of  their  holiness  and  observance,  hypocrites  and  false 
brothers."2  "  But  the  fate  of  a  Divine  condemnation  "  will  fall 
upon  "  all  the  proud  and  stiff-necked,  all  the  superstitious,  re- 
bellious, disobedient,  also,  as  I  fear,  on  our  Observantines,  who 
under  a  show  of  strict  discipline  are  only  loading  themselves  with 
insubordination  and  rebellion."3 

The  Observantines  were  plainly  in  his  opinion  demonstrating 
their  unruliness  by  seeking  to  stand  by  the  old  foundation 
principles  of  the  Congregation.  He  is  angered  by  their  exemption 
from  the  General  and  their  isolation  from  the  other  German 
Augustinians,  and  still  less  does  he  like  their  severities ;  they  ought 
to  fall  into  line  with  the  Conventuals  and  join  them.  We  know 
nothing  further  of  the  matter  nor  anything  of  the  rights  of  the 
case  ;  it  may  be  noted,  however,  that  the  after  history  of  the 
party  with  which  Luther  sided  and  the  eventual  dissolution  of 
the  Congregation,  appear  rather  to  justify  the  Observantines. 

On  the  occasion  of  a  convention  of  the  Order  at  Gotha  in  1515 
— at  which  the  Conventuals  must  have  had  a  decided  majority, 
seeing  that  Luther  was  chosen  as  Rural  Vicar — he  delivered,  on 
May  1,  the  strange  address  on  slander,  which  has  been  preserved. 
He  represents  this  fault  as  prevalent  amongst  the  opposite  party 
and  lashes  in  unmeasured  terms  those  in  the  Order  "  who  wish 
to  appear  holy,"  "  who  see  no  fault  in  themselves,"  but  who 
unearth  the  hidden  sins  and  faults  of  others,  and  hinder  them  in 
doing  good  and  "  in  teaching."  Thus  the  estrangement  had 
proceeded  very  far.  Perhaps,  even  allowing  for  Luther's  ex- 
aggeration, the  other  side  may  have  had  its  weaknesses,  and  been 
guilty  of  precipitancy  and  sins  of  the  tongue,  though  it  is  unlikely 
that  the  faults  were  all  on  one  side.  It  is  noticeable,  however,  that 
Luther's  discourse  is  not  directed  against  calumniators  who 
invent  and  disseminate  untruths  against  their  opponents,  but 
only  against  those  who  bring  to  light  the  real  faults  of  their 
brethren.  Scattered  through  the  Latin  text  of  the  sermon  are 
highly  opprobrious  epithets  in  German.  The  preacher,  for  their 
want  of  charity,  calls  his  opponents  "  poisonous  serpents,  traitors, 
vagabonds,  murderers,  tyrants,  devils,  and  all  that  is  evil,  desperate, 
incredulous,  envious,  and  haters."  He  speaks  in  detail  of  their 
devil's  filth  and  of  the  human  excrement  which  they  busy  them- 
selves in  sorting,  anxious  to  discover  the  faults  of  their  adver- 


1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  155. 

2  Ibid.,  4,  p.  312.    Note  "  bonitas  fidei  "(  =  Christian  righteousness), 
"  veritas  fidei  "(  =  Christian  truth),  "  iuslitice  fidei  substantia  "(= essence 
of  Christian  righteousness). 

3  Ibid.,  4,  p.  122 


70  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

saries.  *  The  wealth  of  biblical  passages  quoted  in  this  strange 
address  cannot  make  up  for  the  lack  of  clear  ideas  and  of  any 
discrimination  and  judgment  as  to  the  limits  to  be  observed  by  a 
preacher  in  commenting  on  the  faults  of  his  time.  Luther's  fond- 
ness for  the  use  of  filthy  and  repulsive  figures  of  speech  also 
makes  a  very  disagreeable  impression.  It  is  true  that  there  we 
must  take  into  account  the  manners  of  the  time,  and  his  Saxon 
surroundings,  but  even  Julius  Kostlin,  Luther's  biographer,  was 
shocked  at  the  indecency  of  the  expressions  which  Luther  uses.8 
The  real  reason  of  this  discourse  was  probably  that  Luther 
wished  to  enter  on  his  office  as  Rural  Vicar  by  striking  a  deadly 
blow  at  the  Observant  faction  and  at  their  habit  of  crying  down 
his  own  party.  It  was  this  address  which  his  friend  Lang,  fully 
alive  to  its  range,  sent  at  once  to  Mutian,  the  frivolous  leader  of 
the  Humanists  at  Gotha,  describing  it  as  a  sermon  "Against  the 
little  Saints." 

Returning  to  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  we  find 
that  therein  Luther  sometimes  makes  characteristic  state- 
ments about  himself.  On  one  occasion,  doubtless  in  a  fit  of 
depression,  he  pours  out  the  following  effusion :  "  If 
Ezechiel  says  the  eyes  wax  feeble,  this  prophecy  is  largely 
fulfilled  at  the  present  time,  as  I  perceive  in  myself  and  in 
many  others.  They  know  very  well  all  that  must  be  believed, 
but  their  faith  and  assent  is  so  dull  that  they  are  oppressed 
as  by  sleep,  are  heavy  of  heart,  and  unable  to  raise  them- 
selves up  to  God."  Such  states  of  lukewarmness  were  to  be 
banished  by  means  of  fear,  but  woe  to  him  who  permits  the 
feeling  of  self-righteousness  to  take  the  place  of  the  weari- 
ness, for  "  there  is  no  greater  unrighteousness  than  excessive 
righteousness."  3  In  the  latter  words  he  seems  to  be  again 
alluding  to  the  "  little  Saints  "  and  the  ostensibly  self- 
righteous  members  of  his  Order. 

His  ill-humour  is  partly  a  result  of  his  dissatisfaction 
with  the  disorders  which  he  knew  or  believed  to  exist  in  his 
immediate  surroundings,  in  the  Order,  and  in  ecclesiastical 
life  generally.  He  frequently  speaks  of  them  with  indigna- 
tion, though  from  the  new  standpoint  which  he  was  gradually 
taking.  "  We  live  in  a  false  peace,"  he  cries,  and  fancy  we 
can  draw  on  the  "  Treasure  of  the  merits  of  Christ  and  the 
Saints."  "  Popes  and  bishops  are  flinging  about  graces  and 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  675  ;    1,  p.  44. 

2  Kostlin,   "Martin  Luther,"   I2,  p.   125.     In  the  5th  edition  by 
Kostlin  and  Kawerau  (vol.  i.,  p.   122)  the  disapproving  comment  of 
Kostlin's  was  suppressed. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  423. 


ON   RELIGIOUS   MENDICANTS        71 

indulgences."  l  Unmindful  of  the  consequences,  he  dimin- 
ished the  respect  of  his  youthful  hearers  for  the  authority 
of  the  Church.  As  to  the  religious  life,  he  was  wont  to  speak 
as  follows  :  "  Here  come  men  of  religion  and  vaunt  their 
confraternities  and  indulgences  at  every  street  corner  only 
to  get  money  for  food  and  clothing.  Oh  !  those  begging 
friars  !  those  begging  friars  !  those  begging  friars  !  Perhaps 
you  are  to  be  excused  because  you  receive  alms  in  God's 
name,  and  preach  the  word  and  perform  the  other  services 
gratis.  That  may  be,  but  see  you  look  to  it."  2  These  words 
in  the  mouth  of  one  who  was  himself  a  member  of  a  mendi- 
cant Order,  for  this  the  Augustinian  Hermits,  undoubtedly 
were,  amounted  to  an  attack  on  the  constitution  of  his  own 
Congregation. 

In  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  he  frequently  at  one 
and  the  same  time  rails  at  the  "  self-righteous  "  and  "  holy 
by  works  "  and  at  the  opposition  party  in  his  Order,  so  that 
it  is  not  easy  to  distinguish  against  whom  his  attacks  are 
directed.  Already  at  this  period  he  shows  a  certain  tendency 
to  under-estimate  the  value  of  Christian  good  works  and  to 
insist  one-sidedly  on  the  power  and  efficacy  of  faith  and  on 
the  application  of  the  merits  of  Christ. 

Most  emphatically,  as  opposed  to  trust  in  good  works  and 
merits,  does  he  insist  on  the  grace  of  Christ,  the  "  nuda  et  sola 
misericordia  Dei  et  benignitas  gratuita "  which  must  be  our 
support  and  stay.3  His  exhortations  against  works  and  human 
efforts  sound  as  though  intended  to  dissuade  from  any  such, 
whether  inward  or  outward,  as  though  the  merits  of  Christ  and 
the  righteousness  which  God  gives  us  might  thereby  suffer.  *  Man's 
interior  efforts  towards  repentance  by  means  of  the  contempla- 
tion of  the  misery  and  the  consequences  of  sin,  do  not  appeal  to 

1  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  424.  2  Ibid.,  p.  425. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  42,  where  he  explains  Psalm  iv.  1 
(Cum  invocarem  exaudivit  me  Deus  iustitice  mece)  as  follows  and  under- 
lines same  (his  grandson  Johann  Ernst  Luther  has  added  in  the  margin  : 
"  Locus  illustris  de  iustificatione  ")  :  "  Vide  quam  vera  et  pia  est  ieta 
confessio,  quce  NIHIL  SIBI  DE  MERITIS  ARROGAT.  Non  enim  ait  '  cum 
multa  fecissem,  vel  opere,  ore  out  aliquo  meo  membro  mertmsem,'  ut 
intelligaa,  eum  NULLAM  IUSTITIAM  ALLEGARE,  nullum  meritum  ioctare, 
nullam  dignitatem  ostentare,  sed  NUDAM  ET  SOLAM  MISERICORDIAM  DEI 
et  benignitatem  gratuitam  extollere,  quce  nihil  in  eo  invenit." 

*  Cp.  ibid.,  3,  pp.  172,  288,  355,  439,  514 ;  and  4,  p.  19,  etc.  Hunzinger, 
who  quotes  these  and  other  passages,  says  :  "  He  warns  much  against 
our  own  works  and  desire  to  gain  merit"  ("  Luther  und  die  deutsche 
Mystik,"  in  "Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschrift,"  19,  1908,  Hft.  11,  pp.  972-88, 
p.  978). 


72  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

him.  He  is  well  aware  that  repentance  consists  in  sorrow  for  and 
hatred  of  sin, 1  but  he  says  that  he  himself  has  no  personal  experi- 
ence of  this  kind  of  compunction.2  He  complains  that  so  many 
turn  to  exterior  works,  they  "  follow  their  own  inventions  and 
make  rules  of  their  own  at  their  choice  ;  their  ceremonies  and  the 
works  they  have  devised  are  everything  to  them  "  :  but  to  act 
thus  is  to  set  up  "  a  new  standard  of  righteousness  instead  of 
cultivating  the  spiritual  things  which  God  prescribes,  namely,  the 
Word  of  God,  Grace  and  Salvation.  These  persons  are  in  so  much 
the  greater  error  because  it  is  a  fine  spiritual  by-path,  they  are 
obstinate  and  stiff-necked,  full  of  hidden  pride  in  spite  of  the 
wonderful  humility  of  which  they  make  a  show."  At  last,  carried 
away  by  his  anger  with  what  is  mostly  a  phantom  of  his  own 
creation,  he  exclaims  :  "  Yes,  they  are  given  up  to  spiritual 
idolatry,  a  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  for  which  there  is  no 
forgiveness."3 

With  such-like  harsh  accusations  of  presumptuous  zeal  for  good 
works  he  frequently  attacks  the  "  captiosi  et  contentiosi  monachi  et 
sacerdotes,"  Let  us  go  for  them,  he  cries,  since  they  are  proud  of 
despising  others.4  Obedience  and  humility  they  have  none,  for 
they  are  seduced  by  the  angel  of  darkness,  who  assumes  the  garb 
of  an  angel  of  light.  They  wish  to  do  great  works  and  they  set 
themselves  above  the  small  and  insignificant  things  demanded 
by  obedience.  These  devotees  in  religious  dress  ("  religiosi 
devotarii  ")  should  beware  of  putting  their  trust  in  the  pious 
exercises  peculiar  to  them,  while  they  remain  lazy,  languid, 
careless,  and  disobedient  in  the  common  life  of  the  Order.5  The 
last  words  "  si  in  Us  quce  sunt  conventualia  et  communia  "  are,  in 
the  MS.,  pointed  to  by  a  hand  drawn  in  the  margin.  The  term 
"  conventualia  "  seems  reminiscent  of  the  Conventuals,  but  not 
much  further  on,  in  the  Commentary  on  the  same  Psalm  (cxviii.), 
we  find  the  word  "  observance."  The  Psalmist,  he  says,  implicitly 
condemns  "  those  who  are  proud  of  their  holiness,  and  observ- 
ance, who  destroy  humility  and  obedience."6  He  goes  on  to 
advocate  something  akin  to  Quietism,  saying  we  should  do,  not 
our  own  works,  but  God's  works,  i.e.  "  those  which  God  works  in 
us  "  :  everything  we  do  of  ourselves  belongs  only  to  outward  or 
carnal  righteousness.7  It  is  quite  possible  that  he  did  not  wish 
to  deny  the  correct  sense  these  words  might  convey,  for,  elsewhere 

1  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  537  ff.  on  Psalm  Ixxvi. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  549  :  "  Inde  et  mihi  [psalmus  Ixxvi.]  difficilis,  quia  extra 
compunctionem  sum  et  loquor  de  compunctione  "  ;  in  such  matters  one 
must  be  able  "  intus  sentire  "  ;  "  igitur  quia  mece  compunctionis  practica 
non  possum,  declarabo  eum  [psalmum]  ad  exemplum  et  ex  practica  B. 
Augustini  ('Confess.,'  1,  8)." 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  331  f. 

*  Ibid.,  4,  p.  78.  5  Ibid.,  4,  p.  306  f.  «  Ibid.,  p.  312. 

7  Ibid.,  3,  p.  541.  "  Non  in  viribus  nostris  et  iuslitiis  operemur, 
sed  opera  Dei  discamus  operari  .  .  .  Eruditus  [psalmi  auctor]  con- 
cludit,  opera  Dei  non  ease,  nisi  quce  Deus  in  nobis  operetur.  Quare 
iustitice  et  opera  nostra  coram  eo  nihil  sunt,  ideoque  opera  exterioris 
iustitice  non  sunt  opera  Dei,"  p.  542  :  "  Omnia  ista  (Ps.  Ivi.  13)  dicuntur 


GRATUITOUS   JUSTIFICATION        73 

in  his  controversies,  he  appears  unaware  of  the  exaggeration  of 
his  language.  But  the  skirmish  with  the  so-called  self-righteous 
had  a  deeper  explanation.  Luther  was  so  fascinated  with  the 
righteousness  which  God  gives  through  faith,  that  man's  share  in 
securing  the  same  is  already  relegated  too  much  to  the  back- 
ground. 

Thus  he  explains  the  verse  of  Psalm  cxlii.  where  the  words  occur 
"  Give  ear  to  my  supplication  in  Thy  truth  and  hear  me  in  Thy 
righteousness  "  as  follows  :  "  Hear  me  by  Thy  mercy  and  truth, 
i.e.  through  the  truth  of  Thy  promises  of  mercy  to  the  penitent 
and  those  who  beseech  Thee,  not  for  my  merits'  sake  ;  hear  me  in 
Thy  righteousness,  not  in  my  righteousness,  but  in  that  which 
Thou  givest  and  wilt  give  me  through  faith."1  With  words  of 
remarkable  forcefulness  he  declares  that,  to  be  in  sin,  only  makes 
more  evident  the  value  of  the  "  institia  "  which  comes  through 
Christ.  "It  is  therefore  fitting  that  we  become  unrighteous  and 
sinners  "  ;  what  he  really  means  to  say  is,  that  we  should  feel 
ourselves  to  be  such.2  Elsewhere  he  dwells,  not  incorrectly,  but 
with  startling  emphasis,  on  the  fact  that  justification  comes  only 
from  God  and  without  any  effort  on  our  part  (gratis),3  and  that  it 
is  not  due  to  works  ;*  sanctification  must  proceed  not  from  our  own 
righteousness  and  according  to  the  letter,  but  from  the  heart,  and 
with  grace,  spirit  and  truth.5  The  desire  for  justification  is  to  him 
the  same  as  the  desire  for  "  a  lively  and  strong  faith  in  which  I 
live  and  am  justified."  "  Enliven  me,"  he  says,  "  i.e.  penetrate 
me  with  faith,  because  the  just  man  lives  by  faith  ;  faith  is  our 
life."6 

Even  at  that  time  he  was  not  averse  to  dwelling  on  the  strength 
of  concupiscence  and,  in  his  usual  hyperbolical  style,  he  lays  stress 
on  the  weakness  and  wickedness  of  human  nature.  "  We  are  all 


contra  superbos  et  iustos  apud  se,  qui  meditantur,  quomodo  sua  opera 
statuant  et  suas  adinventiones  exerceant."  He  therefore  blames  them  : 
"  Foris  ambulant  in  carne  et  carnali  itistitia,"  etc.  Cp.  ibid.,  4,  p.  281 
against  "  proprietarii  iustitice "  who,  in  exchange  for  good  works, 
have  taken  out  righteousness  on  lease. 

1  Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  443.    Cp.  ibid.,  3,  pp.  174,  178,  where  Romans  i. 
17,  "  lustitia  Dei  revclatur  in  eo  [evangelic],"  is  quoted  with  the  correct 
traditional  meaning. 

2  Ibid.,  4,  p.  383.     The  passage  reminds  one  of  the  "  esto  peccator 
et  pecca  fortiter,"  which  will  be  referred  to  later.     It  reads  :    "  JBquum 
est  infirmari  secundum  carnem,   ut  inhabitet  in  nobis  virtus   Christi 
(2  Cor.  xii.  9)  in  homine  interiori.    ^EQTJUM  EST  INITJSTOS  ET  PECCA- 
TORES  FIERI,  ut  iustiftcetur  Deus  in  sermonibus  suis  (Ps.  1.  6) :    quia 
non  venit  iustos  vocare  sed  peccatores  (Matt.  ix.  13),  id  est  ut  iuslitia 
nostra  agnoscatur  nihil  esse  nisi  peccatum  et  pannus  menstruates  (Is. 
Jxiv.  6),  ac  sic  potius  iustitia  Christi  regnet  in  nobis,  dum  per  ipsum  et 
in  ipso  confidimus  salvari,  non  ex  nobis,  ne  auferamus  ei  nomen,  quod 
est  Jhesus,  id  est  Salvator." 

3  Cp.  Weim.  ed.,  3,  pp.  290,  284. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  172. 

5  Ibid.,  3,  p.  320  ft  ;    4,  p.  300  fif.,  312. 

•  Ibid.,  4,  p.  325. 


74  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

a  lost  lump  "  51  "  whoever  is  without  God  sins  necessarily,  i.e. 
he  is  in  sin  "  ;2  "  unconquerable  "  or  "  necessary  "  are  terms  he 
is  fond  of  applying  to  concupiscence  in  his  discourses.3  From 
other  passages  it  would  almost  appear  as  if,  even  then,  he 
admitted  the  persistence  of  original  sin,  even  after  baptism  ;  for 
instance,  he  says  that  the  whole  world  is  "  in  peccatis  original- 
ibus,"  though  unaware  of  it,  and  must  therefore  cry  "  mea 
culpa"  ;*  our  righteousness  is  nothing  but  sin  ;5  understanding, 
will,  and  memory,  even  in  the  baptised,  are  all  fallen,  and,  like 
the  wounded  Jew,  await  the  coming  of  the  Samaritan.6  He  also 
speaks  of  the  imputation  of  righteousness  by  God  who,  instead 
of  attributing  to  us  our  sins,  "  imputes  [the  merits  of  Christ]  unto 
our  righteousness."7 

Still,  taken  in  their  context,  none  of  these  passages  furnish 
any  decisive  proof  of  a  deviation  from  the  Church's  faith. 
They  forebode,  indeed,  Luther's  later  errors,  but  contain 
as  yet  no  explicit  denial  of  Catholic  doctrine.  In  this  we 
must  subscribe  to  Denifle's  view,  and  admit  that  no  teaching 
actually  heretical  is  found  in  the  Commentary  on  the 
Psalms.8 

With  reference  to  man's  natural  powers,  that  cardinal  point  of 
Luther's  later  teaching,  neither  the  ability  to  be  good  and  pleasing 
to  God,  nor  the  freedom  of  choosing  what  is  right  and  good  in 
spite  of  concupiscence,  is  denied.9  Concupiscence,  as  he  fre- 

1  Weim.  ed.,  p.  343  :  "  omnes  sumus  massa  perditionis  et  debitor es 
mortis  ceternce." 

*  Ibid.,  p.  354.  3  Cp.  ibid.,  4,  p.  207.  4  Ibid.,  p.  497. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  383.  6  Ibid.,  p.  211. 

7  Ibid.,  3,  p.   171  :    "  Quod  ex  nullis  operibus  pcccata  remittuntur, 
sed  sola  misericordia  Dei  non  imputantis."    Cp.  p.  175. 

8  Cp.  on  Concupiscence,  in  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  Denifle,  1 2, 
p.  441  f.  and  pp.  453,  476.  A.  Hunzinger,  "  Lutherstudien,"  1 ;  "  Luthers 
Neuplatonismus  in  den   Psalmvorlesungen,"  Leipzig,   1906,   Preface  : 
"  Denifle's  '  Luther  '   is  correct ;    Luther  during  the  first  years  of  his 
literary  activity  stood  on  Catholic  ground  ;    nor  is  it  by  any  means 
the  case  that  from  the  beginning  the  reforming  element  was  contained 
in  germ  in  Luther's  theology."      On  the  other  hand,   the  elements 
which  were  to  lead  him  to  take  the  step  from  the  obscure  theology 
of  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  to  the  heretical  theology  of  1515-16 
— viz.  his   false   mysticism   and   misapprehension    of   the    Epistle  to 
the  Romans — were  already  present.     The  most  suspicious  passage  in 
the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  is  4,  p.  227,  which  points  to  the  con- 
tinuance of  his  doubts  regarding  predestination  ;   he  says  that  Christ 
had  drunk  of  the  chalice  of  suffering  for  the  elect,  but  not  for  all.    See 
the  next  note,  especially  the  first  quotation. 

9  Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  295  :    "  Anima  mea  est  in  potestate  mea  et  in 
libertate  arbitrii  possum  earn  perdere  vel  salvare  eligendo  vel  reprobando 
legem  tuam."     Concupiscence  has  not  yet  become  original  sin  itself, 
but  is  still  a  mere  relic  of  the  same  (3,  pp.  215,  453).     Kostlin,  in 
"  Luthers  Theologie,"  I2,  p.  66,  quotes  other  passages  from  the  Com- 


SALVATION  IN   OUR  HANDS          75 

quently  admonishes  us,  must  be  driven  back,  "  it  must  not  be 
allowed  the  mastery,"  though  it  will  always  make  itself  felt  ;  it 
is  like  a  Red  Sea  through  the  midst  of  which  we  must  pass, 
refusing  our  consent  to  the  temptations  which  press  upon  us  like 
an  advancing  tide.1  Luther  lays  great  weight  on  the  so-called 
Syntheresis,  the  inner  voice  which,  according  to  the  explanation 
of  the  schoolmen,  he  believes  cries  longingly  to  God,  by  whom 
also  it  is  heard  ;  it  is  the  ineradicable  precious  remnant  of  good 
left  in  us,2  and  upon  which  grace  acts.  Man's  salvation  is  in  his 
own  hands  inasmuch  as  he  is  able  either  to  accept  or  to  reject  the 
law  of  God.3  Luther  also  speaks  of  a  preparation  for  grace 
("  dispositio  et  prceparatio ")  which  God's  preventing,  super- 
natural grace  assists.4  He  expressly  invokes  the  traditional 
theological  axiom  that  "  God's  grace  is  vouchsafed  to  everyone 
who  does  his  part."5  He  even  teaches,  following  Occam's  school, 
that  such  self-preparation  constitutes  a  merit  "  de  congruo."6  He 
speaks  as  a  Catholic  of  the  doctrine  of  merit,  admits  the  so-called 
thesaurus  meritorum  from  which  indulgences  derive  their  efficacy, 
and,  without  taking  offence,  alludes  to  satisfaction  (satisfactio 
opens),1  to  works  of  supererogation,8  as  also  to  the  place  of 
purification  in  the  next  world  (purgatorium).9 

Regarding  God's  imputing  of  righteousness  he  follows,  it  is 
true,  the  Occamist  doctrine,  and  on  this  subject  the  following 
words  are  the  most  interesting  :  faith  and  grace  by  which  we  to- 
day (i.e.  in  the  present  order  of  things)  are  justified,  would  not 
justify  without  the  intervention  of  the  pactum  Dei  ;  i.e.  of  God's 
mercy,  who  has  so  ordained  it,  but  who  might  have  ordained 
otherwise.10  Friedrich  Loofs  rightly  says  regarding  imputation 
in  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  :  "It  must  be  noted  that  the 


mentary  on  the  Psalms,  thus,  3,  p.  584  :  God  is  more  ready  to  have 
mercy  on  us  than  we  are  to  beseech  Him  ;  but  He  is  unable  to  have 
mercy  on  us  if  our  pride  proves  a  hindrance  ("  quando  nos  nolumus  .  .  . 
prohibente  noslra  superbia  ").  In  his  marginal  notes  on  Peter  Lombard 
(written  1509)  Luther  had  rightly  said  :  "  Liberum  arbitrium  damnatur 
quia  .  .  .  gratiam  .  .  .  oblatam  et  exhibitam  non  acceptat  vel  acccptam 
non  custodit."  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  9,  p.  71. 

1  Weim.  ed.,    3,  p.  546  :   "  Desideriis  ait  apostolus,  carnis  ncn  esse 
obediendum,  nee  regnare  peccatum  debere  licet  esse  desideria  et  peccata  in 
carne  prohiberi  non  possit.  ...  In  mediis  tentationibus  eundum  est,  as  the 
Israelites  passed  through  the  Red  Sea.     Sentiri  et  videre  et  experiri 
oportet  bonitatea  et  malitias  carnis,  sed  non  consentire." 

2  Ibid.,  3,  p.  603  :   "  Residuum  prceteritorum  bonorum  [of  the  original 
state]  quod  in  affectu  remansit  syntheresico."     On  the  syntheresis  and 
Luther's  early  views  on  this  subject  see  Kostlin,  "Luthers  Theologie," 
I2,  p.  51  f.,  125. 

3  Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  295,  cp.  above,  p.  74,  n.  9. 

4  Ibid.,  3,  pp.  89,  101,  200  ;   4,  p.  204  f.,  309. 

5  Ibid.,  4,  pp.  262,  309.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  262,  312 

7  Ibid.,  3,  pp.  52,  189,  239  f.,  424,  462,  466,  603. 

8  Ibid.,  4,  p.  250.  9  Ibid.,  3,  pp.  426,  239. 

10  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  289.     Cp.  Ibid.,  4,  pp.  329,  312  :    "  ex  pacto  et 
promission?  Dei." 


76  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

reputari  iustum,  i.e.  the  being-declared-justified,  is  not  considered 
by  Luther  as  the  reverse  of  making  righteous  ;  on  the  contrary, 
the  sine  merito  iustificari  in  the  sense  of  dbsolvi  is  at  the  same  time 
the  beginning  of  a  new  life."1  "The  faith,"  so  A.  Hunzinger 
opines  of  the  passages  in  question  in  the  same  work,  "  is  as  yet  no 
imputative  faith,"  i.e.  not  in  the  later  Lutheran  sense.2 

The  Protestant  scholar  last  mentioned  has  dissected  the 
Commentary  on  the  Psalms  in  detail ;  particularly  did  he 
examine  its  connection  with  the  philosophical  and  mystical 
system  sometimes  designated  as  Augustinian  Neo- 
Platonism.3  It  may  be  left  an  open  question  whether  his 
complicated  researches  have  succeeded  in  proving  that  in 
the  Commentary- — interpreted  in  the  light  of  some  of  the 
older  sermons  and  the  marginal  glosses  in  the  Zwickau 
books — Luther's  teaching  resolves  itself  into  a  "  somewhat 
loose  and  contradictory  mixture  of  four  elements,"  namely, 
Augustinian  Neo-Platonism,  an  Augustinian  doctrine  on 
sin  and  grace,  a  trace  of  scholastic  theology,  and  some  of  the 
mysticism  of  St.  Bernard.4  His  researches  and  his  com- 
parison of  many  passages  in  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms 
with  the  works  of  Augustine,  especially  with  the  "  Solilo- 
quia  "  and  the  book  "  De  vera  religione,"  have  certainly 
shown  that  Luther  was  indebted  for  his  expressions  and  to  a 
certain  extent  for  his  line  of  thought,  to  those  works  of 
Augustine  with  which  he  was  then  acquainted.  He  had 
probably  been  attracted  by  the  mystical  tendency  of  these 
writings,  by  that  reflection  of  Platonism,  which,  however, 
neither  in  St.  Augustine's  nor  in  Luther's  case,  as  Hun- 
zinger himself  admits,,  involved  any  real  acceptance  of  the 
erroneous  ideas  of  the  heathen  Neo-Platonism.  Luther 
was  weary  of  the  dry  Scholasticism  he  had  learned  at  the 
schools  and  greedily  absorbed  the  theology  of  the  Bishop 
of  Hippo,  which  appealed  far  more  to  him,  though  his 
previous  studies  had  been  insufficient  to  equip  him  for  its 
proper  understanding.  His  own  words  in  1532  express  his 
case  fairly  accurately.  He  says :  "In  the  beginning  I 


1  "  Dogmengesch.,"  4  (1906),  p.  697  with  ref.  to  "  Werke,"  Weirn. 
ed.,  4,  p.  443  :    "  sine  merito  redimi  de  peccatis,"  and  similar  passages. 

2  "  Luther  und  die  deutsche  Mystik,"  p.  976,  above,  p.  71,  n.  4. 

3  "  Lutherstudien,"  1.     See  above,  p.  74,  n.  8. 

4  Hunzinger  thus  sums  up  his  results  in  "  Luther  und  die  deutsche 
Mystik,"  p.  975. 


DEFECTS   OF   HIS   EARLY  WORK      77 

devoured  rather  than  read  Augustine."  *  In  a  marginal 
note  on  the  Sentences  of  Peter  Lombard  he  speaks,  in  1509, 
of  this  Doctor  as  "  numquam  satis  laudatus,"  like  him,  he, 
too,  would  fain  send  the  "  moderni  "  and  that  "  fabulator 
Aristoteles  "  about  their  business.2 

The  obscure  and  tangled  mysticism  which  the  young 
author  cf  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  built  up  on 
Augustine' — whose  spirit  was  far  more  profound  than 
Luther's- — the  smattering  of  Augustinian  theology,  altered 
to  suit  his  controversial  purposes,  with  which  he  supple- 
mented his  own  scholastic,  or  rather  Occamistic,  theology, 
and  the  needless  length  of  the  work,  make  his  Commentary 
into  an  unattractive  congeries  of  moral,  philosophical  and 
theological  thoughts,  undigested,  disconnected  and  some- 
times unintelligible.  Various  causes  contributed  to  this 
tangle,  not  the  least  being  the  nature  of  the  subject  itself. 
Most  of  the  Psalms  present  all  sorts  of  ideas  and  figures,  and 
give  the  theological  and  practical  commentator  opportunity 
to  introduce  whatever  he  pleases  from  the  stores  of  his 
knowledge.  With  some  truth  Luther  himself  said  of  his 
work  in  a  letter  to  Spalatin,  dated  December  26,  1515,  that 
it  was  not  worth  printing,  that  it  contained  too  much 
superficial  matter,  and  deserved  rather  to  be  effaced  with  a 
sponge  than  to  be  perpetuated  by  the  press.3  There  is 
something  unfinished  about  the  work,  because  the  author 
himself  was  still  feeling  his  way  towards  that  great  alteration 
which  he  had  at  heart ;  as  yet  he  has  no  wish  to  seek  for  a 
reform  from  without  the  Church,  he  not  only  values  the 
authority  of  the  Church  and  the  belief  she  expounds,  but 
also,  on  the  whole,  the  learned  tradition  of  previous  ages 
with  which  his  rather  scanty  knowledge  of  Scholasticism 
made  him  conversant.  This,  however,  did  not  prevent  him 
attacking  the  real  or  imaginary  abuses  of  the  Schoolmen, 
nor  was  his  esteem  for  the  Church  and  his  Order  great  enough 
to  hinder  him  from  criticising,  rightly  or  wrongly,  the  con- 
dition and  institutions  of  the  Church  and  of  monasticism. 

The  statement  made  by  him  in  1537,  that  he  discovered 

1  Veit  Dietrich  MS.  Collecta,  fol.  137'  in  Seidemann,  "  Luthers 
erste  Psalmenvorlesung,"  1,  p.  vii. 

8  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  9,  p.  29.  Ibid.,  "  In  Augustinum,"  pp. 
7,  23,  24,  27. 

3  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  26  f,,  probably  not  meant  seriously  by 
Luther. 


78  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

his  new  doctrine  at  the  time  he  took  his  degree  as  Doctor, 
i.e.  in  1512,  cannot  therefore  be  taken  as  chronologically 
accurate.  His  words,  in  a  sermon  preached  on  May  21,  were : 
"  Now  we  have  again  reached  the  light,  but  I  reached  it 
when  I  became  a  Doctor  .  .  .  you  should  know  that  Christ 
is  not  sent  as  a  judge."  1 

3.  Excerpts  from  the  Oldest  Sermons.    His  Adversaries 

In  the  sermons  which  Luther,  during  his  professorship, 
preached  at  Wittenberg  in  1515-16,  we  notice  the  cutting, 
and  at  times  ironical,  censure  with  which  he  speaks  to 
the  people  of  the  abuses  and  excesses  which  pervaded 
the  exercise  of  the  priestly  office,  particularly  preaching. 
He  is  displeased  with  certain  excesses  in  the  veneration  of 
the  Saints,  and  reproves  what  he  considers  wrong  in  the 
popular  celebration  of  the  festivals  of  the  Church  and  in 
other  matters.  These  religious  discourses  contain  many 
beautiful  thoughts  and  give  proof,  as  do  the  lectures  also, 
of  a  rich  imagination  and  great  knowledge  of  the  Bible. 
But  even  apart  from  the  harsh  denunciation  of  the  con- 
ditions in  the  Church,  the  prevailing  tone  is  one  of  too 
great  hastiness  and  self-sufficiency,  nor  are  the  Faithful 
treated  justly.  It  was  not  surprising  that  remarks  were 
made,  and  that  he  was  jeered  at  as  a  "  greenhorn  "  by  the 
listeners,  who  told  him  that  he  could  not  "  convert  old 
rogues  "  with  that  sort  of  thing.2 

He  complains  bitterly,  and  with  some  show  of  reason, 
that  at  that  time  preaching  had  fallen  to  a  very  low  ebb 
in  Germany.  The  preachers  too  often  treated  of  trivial 
and  useless  subjects,  enlarged,  with  distinctions  and  sub- 
distinctions,  on  subjects  belonging  to  the  province  of- 
philosophy  and  theology,  and  lost  themselves  in  artificial 
allegorical  interpretations  of  the  Bible.  In  their  recom- 
mendation of  popular  devotions  they  sometimes  went  to 
extremes  and  sometimes  lapsed  into  platitude.  There  was 
too  little  of  the  wealth  of  thought,  power  and  inward 
unction  of  Brother  Bertold  of  Regensburg  and  his  school  to 
be  found  in  the  pulpits  of  that  day.  Even  in  Luther's  own 
sermons  during  these  years  we  meet  with  numerous  defects 

1  "  Luthers  ungedruckte  Predigten,"   ed.   G.    Buchwald,   3,    1885, 
p.  50. 

2  KOstlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  121. 


HIS   QUARRELSOME   TEMPER        79 

of  the  time,  barren  speculations  in  the  style  of  the  nominal- 
istic  school  through  which  he  had  passed,  too  much  forcing 
and  allegorising  of  the  Bible  text,  and  too  much  coarse  and 
exaggerated  declamation.  To  be  pert  and  provoking  was 
then  more  usual  than  now,  and  owing  to  his  natural  tendency 
lie  was  very  prone  to  assume  that  tone.  The  shyness  which 
more  recent  biographers  and  admirers  frequently  ascribe  to 
the  young  professor  is  not  recognisable  in  his  sermons.  That 
he  ever  was  shy  can  only  be  established  by  remarks 
dropped  by  Luther  in  later  life,  and,  as  is  well  known,  such 
remarks  cannot  be  taken  as  reliable  sources  of  information 
concerning  his  early  years.  Were  Luther's  later  account 
correct,  then  we  should  be  forced  to  ascribe  to  the  young 
preacher  and  professor  a  burning  desire  to  live  in  the 
solitude  of  his  cell  and  to  spend  his  days  quite  apart  from 
the  world  and  the  debates  and  struggles  going  forward 
in  the  Church  outside.  Yet,  in  reality,  there  was  nothing  to 
which  he  was  more  inclined  in  his  sermons  than  to  allow  his 
personal  opinions  to  carry  him  to  violent  polemics  against 
people  and  things  displeasing  to  him  ;  he  was  also  in  the 
habit  of  crediting  opponents  more  friendly  to  the  Church 
than  he,  or  even  the  Church  itself,  with  views  which  they 
certainly  did  not  hold.  Johann  Mensing,  one  of  his  then 
pupils  at  the  University  of  Wittenberg,  speaks  of  this  in 
words  to  which  little  attention  has  hitherto  been  paid  : 
"  I  may  say,"  he  writes,  "  and  have  often  heard  it  myself, 
that  when  Luther  had  something  especially  good  or  new  to 
say  in  a  sermon  he  was  wont  to  attribute  to  other  theologians 
the  opposite  opinion,  and  in  spite  of  their  having  written 
and  taught  just  the  same,  and  of  his  very  likely  taking  it 
from  them  himself,  to  represent  it  as  a  precious  thing  he  had 
just  discovered  and  of  which  others  were  ignorant ;  all  this  in 
order  to  make  a  name  for  himself,  like  Herostratus,  who  set 
fire  to  the  temple  of  Diana."  x  We  may  also  mention  here  a 
remark  of  Hieronymus  Emser.  After  saying  that  Luther's 
sermons  were  not  those  of  a  cleric,  he  adds  :  "  I  may  say 
with  truth  that  I  have  never  in  all  my  life  heard  such  an 
audacious  preacher."  2  These,  it  is  true,  are  testimonies 

1  Johann  Mensing  O.P.,  "  Antapologie,"  Frankfurt,  1533,  fol.  18'. 
Cp.  N.  Paulus,  "  Die  deutschen  Dominikaner  im  Kampfe  mit  Luther," 
1903,  p.  40. 

2  Cp.  Evers,  "  Luther,"  1,  p.  377. 


80  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

from  the  camp  of  Luther's  opponents,  but  some  passages 
from  his  early  sermons  will  show  the  tone  which  frequently 
prevails  in  them. 

Already  in  the  Christmas  sermons  of  1515  Luther  does  not 
scruple  to  place  himself,  as  it  were,  on  the  same  footing  with 
the  prophets,  wise  men  and  those  learned  in  the  Scriptures, 
whose  persecution  Christ  foretold,  more  particularly  among 
the  last  of  the  three  groups.  Even  then  his  view  was 
unorthodox. 

"  There  are  some,"  he  says,  "  who  by  the  study  of  Holy 
Scripture  form  themselves  into  teachers  and  who  are  taught 
neither  by  men  nor  directly  by  God  alone."  These  are  the 
learned  in  the  Scriptures.  "  They  exercise  themselves  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  by  meditation  and  research.  Thus  they 
become  able  to  interpret  the  Bible  and  to  write  for  the  instruction 
of  others."  But  such  men  are  persecuted,  he  continues,  and,  as 
the  Lord  prophesied  of  the  prophets  and  wise  men  and  scribes 
that  they  would  not  be  received,  but  attacked,  so  is  it  also  with 
me.  They  murmur  against  my  teaching,  as  I  am  aware,  and 
oppose  it.  They  reproach  me  with  being  in  error  because  "  I 
preach  always  of  Christ  as  the  hen  under  whose  wings  all  who 
wish  to  be  righteous  must  gather."  Thus  his  ideas  with  regard  to 
righteousness  must  have  been  looked  upon  as  importunate  or 
exaggerated,  and,  by  some,  in  all  probability,  as  erroneous.  He 
immediately  launches  out  into  an  apology  :  "  What  I  have  said 
is  this  :  We  are  not  saved  by  all  our  righteousness,  but  it  is  the 
wings  of  the  hen  which  protect  us  against  the  birds  of  prey,  i.e. 
against  the  devil  .  .  .  but,  as  it  was  with  the  Jews,  who 
persecuted  righteousness,  so  it  is  to-day.  My  adversaries  do  not 
know  what  righteousness  is,  they  call  their  own  fancies  grace. 
They  become  birds  of  prey  and  pounce  upon  the  chicks  who  hope 
for  salvation  through  the  mercy  of  our  hen."1 

Such  rude  treatment  meted  out  to  those  who  found 
fault  with  him  (and  one  naturally  thinks  of  clergy  and 
religious,  perhaps  even  of  his  very  brethren,  as  the  culprits), 
the  denouncing  them  from  the  pulpit  as  "  birds  of  prey," 
and  his  claim  to  lay  down  the  law,  this,  and  similar  passages 
in  the  sermons,  throw  a  strong  light  on  his  disputatious 
temper. 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  30  f.:  "  Semper  prcedico  de  Christo, 
gallina  nostra  .  .  .  et  efficitur  mihi  errans  et  falsum."  He  preached, 
namely,  against  those  "  qui  ab  alis  [Domini]  recedunt  in  sua  propria 
bona  opera  .  .  .  et  nolunt  audire,  quod  iustitice  eorum  peccata  sint. 
Gratiam  maxime  impugnant,  qui  earn  iactant."  The  expression  "  gallina 
nostra  "  appears  also  in  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  ("  Werke," 
Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  71). 


DENUNCIATION  OF  OBSERVANTINES    81 

In  a  well-ordered  condition  of  things  the  Superiors  of  the 
Augustinians  or  the  diocesan  authorities  would  have  inter- 
vened to  put  a  stop  to  sermons  so  scandalously  offensive  ;  at 
Wittenberg,  however,  the  evil  was  left  unchecked  and 
allowed  to  take  deeper  root.  The  students,  the  younger 
monks  and  some  of  the  burghers,  became  loud  and  en- 
thusiastic followers  of  the  bold  preacher.  Staupitz  was 
altogether  on  his  side,  and,  owing  to  him,  also  the  Elector  of 
Saxony.  The  Prince  was,  however,  so  little  of  an  authority 
on  matters  theological  that  Luther  once  writes  of  him  that 
he  was  "  in  things  concerning  God  and  the  salvation  of  the 
soul  almost  seven  times  blind."1 

Luther's  notes  on  his  Sunday  sermons  during  the  summer 
of  1516' — a  time  when  he  had  already  expressed  his  errors 
quite  plainly  in  his  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans' — 
afford  us  a  glimpse  of  an  acute  controversy.  At  this  time 
his  sermons  dealt  with  the  first  Commandment. 

The  Gospel  for  the  7th  Sunday  after  Pentecost  with  the  words  : 
"  Beware  of  false  prophets  "  gives  him  an  all  too  tempting  oppor- 
tunity for  a  brush  with  his  adversaries,  and,  on  July  6,  he  attacks 
them  from  the  standpoint  of  his  new  ideas  on  righteousness. 
"  Much  fasting,  and  long  prayers,"  he  cries,  "  study,  preaching, 
watching,  and  poor  clothing,  these  are  the  pious  lambskins  under 
which  ravening  wolves  hide  themselves."  In  their  case  these  are 
only  "  works  done  for  show."  These  Observantines,  for  all  their 
great  outward  display  of  holiness,  are  "  heretics  and  schismatics." 
Thus  does  he  storm,  evidently  applying  his  words  to  his  brother 
monks  of  the  Observantine  party,  who  probably  had  been  among 
the  first  to  criticise  him.  The  following  remarks  on  rebellion  and 
defamation  make  this  application  all  the  clearer.2  "The  true 
works  by  which  we  may  recognise  the  prophets  are  done  in  the 
inner  and  hidden  man.  But  these  proud  men  are  wanting  above 
all  in  patience  and  the  charity  which  is  forgetful  of  self,  but 
concerned  for  others."  "  When  they  have  to  do  works  which  are 
not  to  their  liking  they  are  slow,  rebellious,  obstinate,  but  they 
well  know  how  to  take  away  the  name  of  others  and  to  pass 
judgment  on  them.  .  .  .  There  is  no  greater  plague  in  the  Church 
to-day  than  these  men  with  the  words  :  '  Good  works  are 
necessary  '  in  their  mouths  ;  men  who  refuse  to  distinguish 
between  what  is  good  and  evil  because  they  are  enemies  of  the 
Cross,  i.e.  of  the  good  things  of  God."3 

Such  a  daring  challenge  on  Luther's  part  did  not  fail  in  its 

1  To  Spalatin,  June  8,  1516,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  40. 

2  Cp.  his  reproaches  against  members  of  his  own  Order  with  regard 
to  disobedience  and  want  of  charity,  which  will  be  given  shortly. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  61. 


82  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

effect.  Within  as  well  as  outside  the  Order  united  preparations 
were  being  made  for  a  strong  resistance,  his  foes  working  both 
openly  and  in  secret. 

Luther's  adversaries  were  again  made  the  object  of  his  public 
vituperation  in  two  sermons  preached  on  the  same  day  a  little 
later.  This  was  on  July  27,  the  10th  Sunday  after  Pentecost. 
In  one  sermon  the  passionate  orator  attempted  to  show  the 
danger  of  the  times ;  he  describes  how  powerful  the  devil  had 
become  and  how  under  the  appearance  of  good  works  he  was 
making  certain  persons  "  fine  breakers  "  of  the  first  Command- 
ment. "  And  these  venture,"  he  says,  "  to  shoot  arrows 
secretly  against  those  who  are  right  of  heart."1  In  the  other 
sermon  his  opponents  had  to  submit  to  being  called — in  allusion 
to  the  Sunday's  Gospel  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican — real 
"  Pharisees,  who  by  reason  of  their  assumed  holiness  and  merits 
seek  the  praise  of  men,"  whereas  in  reality,  with  their  self- 
righteousness,  they  have  merely  erected  an  idol  in  their  hearts. z 

Even  this  was  not  enough  however.  The  continuous  com- 
plaints of  those  who  thought  differently  from  himself  called 
Luther  into  the  field  again  the  very  next  Sunday  (August  3).3 
They  heard  what  they  might  have  anticipated,  as  soon  as  the 
fiery  preacher,  whose  appearance  was  doubtless  greeted  by  his 
pupils  and  adherents  with  looks  of  joy,  got  to  work  on  his  thesis  : 
To  place  our  hope  in  anything  but  God,  even  in  the  merit  of  our 
good  works,  is  to  have  false  idols  before  God.  Then  the  stream 
of  words  flowed  apace  against  the  "  proud  saints,"  against  the 
presumptuous  assurance  of  salvation  on  the  part  of  the  servitors 
of  works,  against  the  fools  who  make  the  narrow  way  to  heaven 
still  narrower,  against  the  ABC  pupils,  who  know  nothing  out- 
side their  own  works.  "  These  are  old  stagers,"  he  cries,  because, 
like  certain  horses  who  only  go  along  one  track,  they  know  only 
the  one  path  of  their  own  works.  As  though  he  recollected  his 
own  short-lived  zeal  for  the  work  of  the  Order,  he  adds  :  "  At 
the  commencement,  when  a  man  first  enters  on  the  path  of  the 
religious  life  he  has  to  exercise  himself  in  many  good  works, 
fasts,  vigils,  prayers,  works  of  mercy,  submission,  obedience  and 
other  such-like."  But  to  remain  permanently  stuck  fast  in  these, 
that  is  what  makes  a  man  a  Pharisee.  "  The  truly  pious  who  are 
led  by  the  Spirit,"  he  continues,  in  a  vein  of  peculiar  mysticism, 
"  once  initiated  into  these  things,  do  not  trouble  much  more 
about  them.  Rather  they  offer  themselves  to  God,  ready  for  any 
work  to  which  He  may  call  them,  and  are  led  through  many 
sufferings  and  humiliations  without  knowing  whither  they  are 
going."* 

1  <!Werke,::  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  62,  Fragment. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  63.     (Sermo  contra  opinionem  sanctitatis  ct  meriti.) 

3  Ibid.,  p.   70.     (Sermo  de  vitiis  capitalibus  in  merito  operum  et 
opinione  sanctitatis  se  efferentibus.) 

4  Ibid.,  p.  73.     Line  25  should  read  "  in  fine  quia  "  not  "  in  fine 
qui"  ;   and  line  28  "in  Deo  quieti  "  not  "ercZ)eo  quieti."     The  edition 
elsewhere  leaves  much  to  be  desired. 


"THE   WORD   OF  TRUTH"  83 

Luther  frequently  spoke  at  that  time  in  the  language  of  a 
certain  school  of  mysticism  with  which  he  was  much 
enamoured.  The  following  extract  from  the  sermon  under 
consideration,  together  with  some  thoughts  on  similar  lines, 
from  his  synodal  address  at  Leitzau,  belong  here. 

"  The  man  of  God  leaves  himself  entirely  in  God's  hands  and 
does  not  attach  himself  to  any  works.  His  works  are  nameless  at 
the  commencement,  though  not  at  the  end,  because  he  does  not 
act,  but  remains  passive  ;  he  does  not  calculate  with  his  own 
cleverness,  or  make  projects,  but  allows  himself  to  be  led  and 
does  differently  from  what  he  had  intended  ;  thus  he  is  calm  and 
at  rest  in  God.  Whereas  the  self-righteous  who  abound  in  their 
own  sense  ('  sensuales  iustitiarii  ')  are  apt  to  despair  of  their  own 
works — for  they  want  to  determine  and  name  every  word  before- 
hand, and  with  them  the  name  is  the  first  thing  and  this  they 
follow  up  with  their  works — the  man  of  God  on  the  contrary 
hurries  forward  in  advance  of  every  name." 

In  the  discourse  which  Luther  wrote,  probably  in  the  autumn 
or  winter  months  of  1515,  for  Georg  Mascov,  provost  of  Leitzau 
(see  above,  p.  65),  and  which  was  intended  for  a  synodal  meeting  of 
the  clergy,  he  says,  in  his  most  exaggerated  fashion  :  "  The  whole 
world  lies  as  it  were  under  a  deluge  of  false  and  filthy  teaching." 
The  Word  of  God  like  a  tiny  flame  is  barely  kept  alive.  Egoism, 
worldliness  and  vice  are  predominant.  And  the  remedy  ?  He 
will  cry  it  aloud  over  the  whole  world  :  the  only  remedy  is  to 
preach  "  the  word  of  truth "  with  much  greater  zeal.  The 
greatest,  "  nay  almost  the  only  sin  of  the  priests  "  is  the  neglect 
of  the  "  word  of  truth  "  and  it  is  much  to  be  deplored,  according 
to  him,  "  that  priests  who  fall  into  sins  of  the  flesh  make  more 
account  of  them  than  of  the  neglect  of  the  preaching  of  the  word 
of  truth."1 

The  address  deals  further  at  great  length  with  the  holy  re- 
generation of  man  in  God.  This  is  something  which  God  works  in 
us  while  we  remain  altogether  passive  :  a  man's  seeking,  praying, 
knocking  has  nothing  to  do  with  it  because  mercy  alone  effects  it. 
Man  does  nothing  ("  ipso  nihil  agente,  petente,  merente  ")  ;  in  this 
mystical  regeneration  by  God,  it  is  as  with  the  natural  generation  of 
man  :  "he  who  is  generated  in  both  cases  does  not  count,  and 
can  do  nothing  by  his  work  or  merits  towards  his  begetting,  but 
lies  wholly  in  the  will  of  the  Father." 

As  sons  of  God  we  must  bear  fruit — here  the  discourse  becomes 
quite  practical — and  the  purpose  of  this  meeting  is  to  demand  it 
of  the  clergy.  "  We  must  not  expose  our  Synod  to  the  scorn  of 
our  enemies."  It  is  more  important  that  chastity  and  every 
virtue  should  dwell  in  the  priests  than  that  statutes  should  be 
made  with  regard  to  readings,  prayers,  festivals,  and  ceremonies. 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  10  :  "  Scatet  totus  orbis  imo  inundat 
.  .  .  doctrinam  sordibus."  The  doubts  as  to  the  authenticity  of  this 
sermon  do  not  deserve  attention. 


84  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

The  vague,  obscure  mysticism  which  played  a  part  in 
Luther's  spiritual  development  at  that  time,  as  well  as  his 
wrong,  one-sided  interpretation  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
had,  as  already  stated,  led  him  into  a  heterodox  by-way. 

A  cursory  glance  at  the  influence  of  Scholasticism  and 
Mysticism  on  his  mental  progress,  may  perhaps  be  here 
in  place. 


4.  Preliminary  Remarks  on  Young  Luther's  Eolations  to 
Scholasticism  and  Mysticism 

In  the  years  of  Luther's  development  the  two  great 
intellectual  forces  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Scholasticism  and 
Mysticism,  no  longer  exercised  quite  so  powerful  an  influence 
as  of  yore,  when  they  ruled  over  the  world  of  intellect. 
Their  influence  on  Luther's  views  and  his  career  was  diverse. 
Scholasticism  in  its  then  state  of  decay,  with  its  endless 
subtilties  and  disputatiousness,  which,  moreover,  he  knew 
only  under  the  form  of  Occam's  nominalism,  repelled  him, 
to  his  own  great  loss.  As  a  result  he  never  acquired  those 
elements  of  knowledge  of  true  and  lasting  value  to  be  found 
in  the  better  schools,  of  which  the  traditions  embodied  the 
work  of  centuries  of  intellectual  effort  on  the  part  of  some 
of  the  world's  greatest  minds.  Mysticism,  on  the  other 
hand,  attracted  him  on  account  of  his  natural  disposition, 
so  full  of  feeling  and  imagination.  He  had  been  initiated 
into  it  at  the  monastery  by  the  works  of  Bernard  of  Clair- 
vaux,  Bonaventure  and  Gerson,  and,  later,  by  the  sermons 
of  Tauler  and  the  so-called  German  Theology.  This  study 
had  been  recommended  him  by  Staupitz  and  also  by  his 
brother  monks,  especially  by  Johann  Lang.  It  was,  however, 
the  more  obscure  and  ambiguous  writings  and  extracts  from 
mystic  works  which  appealed  to  him  most,  owing  to  his 
being  able  to  read  into  them  his  own  ideas. 

As  regards  Scholasticism,  his  character  predisposed  him 
against  it.  Scholastic  learning  is  founded  on  conceptual 
operations  of  reason  ;  it  aims  at  clear  definitions,  logical 
proofs  and  a  systematic  linking  together  of  propositions. 
Luther's  mind,  on  the  other  hand,  inclined  more  to  a  free 
treatment  of  the  subject,  one  which  allowed  for  feeling  and 
imagination,  and  to  such  descriptions  as  offered  a  field  for 
his  eloquence.  One  of  the  chief  reasons,  however,  for  his 


OCCAMISM  85 

lifelong  dislike  of  Scholasticism  was  his  very  partial  acquaint- 
ance with  the  same.  He  had,  as  we  shall  see,  never  studied 
its  great  representatives  in  the  thirteenth  century ;  he  had 
made  acquaintance  only  with  its  later  exponents,  viz.  the 
Nominalists  of  Occam's  school,  who  gave  the  tone  to  his 
theological  instructions  and  whose  teachings  were  very 
prevalent  in  the  schools  in  that  day.  He  speaks  repeatedly 
of  William  of  Occam  as  his  teacher.  Of  Luther's  relations 
to  his  doctrines  we  shall  have  to  speak  later  :  some  of 
Occam's  views  he  opposed,  others,  which  happened  to  be  at 
variance  with  those  of  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin,  he  approved. 
He  would  not  have  attributed  to  the  latter  and  to  other 
exponents  of  the  better  school  of  Scholasticism  such  foolish 
theses  as  he  did — theses  of  which  they  never  even  dreamt' — 
had  he  possessed  any  clear  notion  of  their  teaching.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  he  also  imbibed  during  his  first  years 
as  a  student  at  Erfurt,  the  spirit  of  antagonism  against 
Scholasticism  which  Humanism  with  its  craving  for  novelty 
displayed,  an  antagonism  based  ostensibly  on  disgust  at  the 
unclassic  form  of  the  former. 

Already  during  the  earliest  period  of  his  career  at  Witten- 
berg, as  soon,  indeed,  as  he  began  to  preach  and  lecture, 
he  commenced  his  attacks  against  Scholasticism. 

He  considers  that  Aristotle,  on  whom  in  the  Middle  Ages  both 
theologians  and  philosophers  had  set  such  store,  had  been  grossly 
misunderstood  by  most  of  the  scholastics  ;  all  the  good  there  is 
in  Aristotle,  he  says,  he  has  stolen  from  others  ;  whatever  in  him 
is  right,  others  must  understand  and  make  use  of  better  than  he 
himself.1 

He  often  passes  judgment  on  the  theology  of  the  Middle  Ages 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  narrow,  one-sided  school  of  Occam, 
and  then,  with  his  lively  imagination,  he  grossly  exaggerates  the 
opposition  between  it  and  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  and  the  more 
classic  schoolmen.  The  whole  herd  of  theologians,  he  says,  has 
been  led  astray  by  Aristotle  ;  nor  have  they  understood  him  in 
the  least ;  according  to  him,  Thomas  of  Aquin — the  Doctor  whom 
the  Church  has  so  greatly  honoured  and  placed  at  the  head  of  all 
theologians — did  not  expound  a  single  chapter  of  Aristotle 
aright ;  "  all  the  Thomists  together  "  have  not  understood  one 
chapter.  Aristotle  has  only  led  them  all  to  lay  too  much  stress 
upon  the  importance  and  merit  of  human  effort  and  human  works 
to  the  disadvantage  of  God's  grace.  Here  lay  Aristotle's  chief 
crime  discovered  by  Luther,  thanks  to  his  own  new  theology.2 

1  Cp.  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  118.     Extracts  from  the  first  of  the 
Christmas  sermons  of  1515  (or  1514). 
*  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  128  seq. 


86  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

In  his  lectures  on  the  Psalms  Luther  already  tells  his  hearers 
that  the  bold  loquacity  of  theology  was  due  to  Aristotle  j1  he 
makes  highly  exaggerated  remarks  regarding  the  disputes  between 
the  Scotists  and  Occam  and  between  Occam  and  Scotus.2  Peter 
Lombard,  no  less  than  Scotus  and  St.  Thomas,  comes  in  for  some 
harsh  criticism.  But  Luther  ever  reverts  to  Aristotle.  He  wishes, 
so  he  writes  to  his  friend  Lang  in  February,  1516,  to  tear  off 
"  the  Greek  mask  which  this  comedian  has  assumed  to  pass  him- 
self off  in  the  Church  as  a  philosopher  ;  his  shame  should  be  laid 
bare  to  all."3 

Such  audacious  language  had  probably  never  before  been 
used  against  the  greatest  minds  in  the  history  of  human 
thought  by  a  theological  professor,  who  himself  had  as  yet 
given  no  proof  whatever  of  his  capacity. 

His  attacks  on  Scholasticism  and  the  philosophical  and 
theological  schools  up  to  that  day,  were  soon  employed  to 
cover  his  attacks  on  dogma  and  the  laws  of  the  Church. 
In  1518  he  places  Scholasticism  and  Canon  Law  on  the  same 
footing,  both  needing  reform.4 

The  learned  Martin  Pollich,  who  was  teaching  law  at  the 
University  of  Wittenberg,  looked  at  the  young  assailant 
with  forebodings  as  to  the  future.  He  frequently  said  that 
this  monk  would  overthrow  the  teaching  which  yet  prevailed 
at  all  the  universities.  "  This  brother  has  de'ep-set  eyes," 
he  once  remarked,  "  he  must  have  strange  fancies."  5  His 
strange  eyes,  with  their  pensive  gleam,  ever  ready  to  smile 
on  a  friend,  and,  in  fact,  his  whole  presence,  made  an  im- 
pression upon  all  who  were  brought  into  close  contact  with 
him.  It  is  an  undoubted  fact,  true  even  of  his  later  days, 
that  intercourse  with  him  was  pleasant,  especially  to  those 
whom  he  honoured  with  his  friendship  or  whom  he  wished 
to  influence.  Not  only  were  his  pupils  at  Wittenberg 
devoted  admirers  of  the  brave  critic  of  the  Schoolmen,  but, 
little  by  little,  he  also  gained  an  unquestioned  authority 

1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,    p.  129. 

2  Seidemann,  "  Luthers  Vorlesungen  iiber  die  Psalmen,"  1,  p.  211  ; 
"  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  319. 

3  To  Job.  Lang,  Prior  at  Erfurt,  February  8,  1517.    "  Brief wechsel," 
1,  p.  86  :    "  Nihil  ita  ardet  animus,  quam  histrionem  ilium,  qui  tarn  vere 
Grceca  larva  ecclesiam  lusit,  multis  revelare  ignominiamque  eius  cunclis 
ostendere."    De  Wette  has  the  letter  incorrectly  dated  February  8,  1516. 

4  Letter  to  Trutfetter,  May  9,  1518,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  187. 

5  "  Corpus  Reform.,"  3,  p.  154,  n.  83.     O.  Waltz  erroneously  ques- 
tions this  statement  in  "  Zeitschr.  f.  Kirchengesch.,"  2,  1878,  p.  628. 
Cp.  3,  1879,  305. 


THE   GERMAN  MYSTICS  87 

over  the  other  professors,  the  more  so  as  there  was  no  one  at 
the  University  able  or  willing  to  take  the  risks  of  a  challenge. 

The  psychological  reaction  on  himself  of  so  high  a  position 
at  the  University  must  not  be  under-estimated  as  a  factor 
in  his  development.  He  felt  himself  to  be  a  pioneer  in  the 
struggle  against  Scholasticism,  and  one  called  to  reinstate 
a  new  theology. 

His  attitude  to  mysticism  was  absolutely  different  from 
that  which  he  assumed  with  regard  to  Aristotle  and  Scholas- 
ticism. 

Luther  speaks  in  praise  of  Tauler  for  the  first  time  in 
1516,  though  he  had  probably  become  acquainted  with  him 
earlier.  At  about  that  same  time  a  little  booklet,  "  Theologia 
Deutsch,"  exercised  a  great  influence  upon  him. 

In  a  letter  to  Lang — who  was  also  inclined  to  look  with  favour 
on  Tauler,  the  master  of  German  mystic  theology — Luther 
betrays  how  greatly  he  was  attracted  by  this  writer.  In  his 
sonorous,  expansive  language,  he  speaks  of  him  as  a  teacher 
whose  enlightenment  was  such,  that,  though  utterly  unknown  in 
the  theological  schools,  he  contains  more  real  theology  than  all 
the  scholastic  theologians  of  all  the  universities  put  together.  He 
also  repeatedly  assured  his  hearers  that  Tauler's  book  of  sermons 
had  "  led  him  to  the  spirit."1 

At  that  time  Luther  showed  great  preference  for  the  exhorta- 
tions of  the  German  mystics  on  self-abasement,  apathy  and 
abnegation  of  self.  "  Theologia  Deutsch,"  that  little  work  of  an 
unknown  Frankfort  priest  of  the  fourteenth  century,  which  he 
came  across  in  a  MS.,  so  fascinated  him  that,  adding  to  it  a  preface 
and  his  own  name,  "  Martinus  Luder,"  he  published  it  in  1516  at 
Wittenberg.  It  was  the  first  occasion  of  his  making  use  of  the 
press  ;  this  first  edition  was,  however,  incomplete,  owing  to  the 
state  of  the  MS.  ;  the  work  was  finally  reissued  complete  and 
-under  the  title  which  Luther  himself  had  selected,  viz.  "A 
German  Theologia,"  in  1518.  In  the  sub- title  of  the  first  edition 
he  had  called  it  a  "  noble  spiritual  booklet,"  and  in  the  preface 
had  praised  it,  saying  that  it  did  not  float  like  foam  on  the  top  of 
the  water,  but  that  it  had  been  brought  up  from  the  bottom  of 
the  Jordan  by  a  true  Israelite.2  In  the  first  edition  he  had 
erroneously  attributed  the  booklet  to  Tauler  ;  in  the  second  lie 
says  it  is  equal  in  merit  to  Tauler's  own  writings.  Yet,  to  tell  the 
truth,  it  is  far  from  reaching  Tauler's  high  standard  of  thought. 
Luther,  however,  assures  us  that,  next  to  the  Bible  and  St. 
Augustine,  he  can  mention  no  book  from  which  he  has  learned 
more  of  the  nature  of  God,  Christ,  man  and  all  other  things,  than 
from  this  work.  When  he  forwarded  a  printed  copy  of  the  first 

1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  110  f. 

*  Preface  to  his  first  edition  :    "  Werke,''  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  153. 


88  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

edition  to  Spalatin  (December  14,  1516),  he  wrote,  that  Tauler 
offered  a  solid  theology  which  was  quite  similar  to  the  old  ;  that 
he  was  acquainted  with  no  theology  more  wholesome  and  evan- 
gelical. Spalatin  should  saturate  himself  with  Tauler's  sermons ; 
"  taste  and  see  how  sweet  the  Lord  is,  after  you  have  first  tasted 
and  seen  how  bitter  is  everything  that  is  ourselves."1 

In  addition  to  the  authors  mentioned,  the  mysticism  of 
Pseudo-Dionysius  the  Areopagite  and  of  Gerard  Groot,  the 
founder  of  the  Community  of  the  Brethren  of  the  Common  Life, 
were  known  to  him.  That  he  was,  or  had  been,  fond  of  reading 
the  writings  of  St.  Bernard,  we  may  guess  from  his  many — often 
misunderstood — quotations  from  the  same. 

Luther  was  also  well  able,  whilst  under  the  influence  of  that 
inwardness  which  he  loved  so  much  in  the  mystics,  to  make  his 
own  their  truly  devotional  and  often  moving  language. 

In  a  friendly  letter  he  comforts,  as  follows,  an  Augustinian  at 
Erfurt,  Georg  Leiffer,  regarding  his  spiritual  troubles  :  "  The 
Cross  of  Christ  is  distributed  throughout  the  whole  world  and 
each  one  gets  a  small  piece  of  it.  Do  not  throw  yours  away,  but 
lay  it,  like  a  sacred  relic,  in  a  golden  shrine,  i.e..  in  a  heart  filled 
with  gentle  charity.  For  even  the  wrongs  which  we  suffer  from 
men,  persecutions,  passion  and  hatred,  which  are  caused  us 
either  by  the  wicked  or  by  those  who  mean  well,  are  priceless 
relics,  which  have  not  indeed,  like  the  wood  of  the  cross,  been 
hallowed  by  contact  with  our  Lord's  body,  but  which  have 
been  blessed  by  His  most  loving  heart,  encompassed  by  His 
friendly,  Divine  Will,  kissed  and  sanctified.  The  curse  becomes  a 
blessing,  insult  becomes  righteousness,  suffering  becomes  an 
aureole,  and  the  cross  a  joy.  Farewell,  sweet  father  and  brother, 
and  pray  for  me." 

5.  Excerpts  from  the  Earliest  Letters 

The  above  letter  of  Luther's  is  one  of  the  few  remaining 
which  belong  to  that  transition  period  in  his  life.  His  letters 
are  naturally  not  devoid  of  traces  of  the  theological  changer 
which  was  going  forward  within  him,  and  they  may  there- 
fore be  considered  among  the  precursors  of  his  future 
doctrine. 

His  new  theological  standpoint  is  already  apparent  in 
the  charitable  and  sympathetic  letter  of  encouragement 
which,  as  Rural  Vicar,  he  sent  to  one  of  his  brother  monks 
about  that  time.  "  Learn,  my  sweet  brother,"  he  writes 
to  George  Spenlein,  an  Augustinian  of  the  monastery  of 
Mcmmingen,  "  learn  Christ  and  Him  Crucified,  learn  to 
sing  to  Him,  and,  despairing  of  your  own  self,  say  to 
Him  :  Thou,  Lord  Jesus,  art  my  righteousness,  but  I  am 
1  "  Correspondence,"  1,  p.  75. 


MYSTIC  TONE   OP  LETTERS          89 

Thy  sin  ;  Thou  hast  accepted  what  I  am  and  given  me  what 
Thou  art ;  Thou  hast  thus  become  what  Thou  wast  not, 
and  what  I  was  not  I  have  received.  .  .  .  Never  desire," 
he  exhorts  him,  "  a  purity  so  great  as  to  make  you  cease 
thinking  yourself,  nay  being,  a  sinner ;  for  Christ  dwells 
only  in  sinners  ;  He  came  down  from  heaven  where  He 
dwells  in  the  righteous  in  order  to  live  also  in  sinners.  If 
you  ponder  upon  His  love,  then  you  will  become  conscious 
of  His  most  sweet  consolation.  What  were  the  use  of  His 
death  had  we  to  attain  to  peace  of  conscience  by  our  own 
trouble  and  labour  ?  Therefore  only  in  Him  will  you  find 
peace  through  a  trustful  despair  of  yourself  and  your 
works."1 

A  similar  mystical  tone  (we  are  not  here  concerned  with 
the  theology  it  implied)  shows  itself  also  here  and  there  in 
Luther's  later  correspondence.  The  life  of  public  contro- 
versy in  which  he  was  soon  to  engage  was  certainly  not 
conducive  to  the  peaceful,  mystical  tone  of  thought  and 
to  the  cultivation  of  the  interior  spirit ;  as  might  have 
been  expected,  the  result  of  the  struggle  was  to  cast  his 
feeling  and  his  mode  of  thought  in  a  very  different  mould. 
It  was  impossible  for  him  to  become  the  mystic  some 
people  have  made  him  out  to  be  owing  to  the  distractions 
and  excitement  of  his  life  of  struggle.2 

In  the  above  letter  to  Spenlein,  Luther  speaks  of  this 
monk's  relations  to  his  brethren.  Spenlein  had  previously 
been  in  the  monastery  at  Wittenberg,  where  Luther  had 
known  him  as  a  zealous  monk,  much  troubled  about  the 
details  of  the  Rule,  and  who  even  found  it  difficult  to  have 
to  live  with  monks  who  were  less  exact  in  their  observance. 
"  When  you  were  with  us,"  says  the  writer,  "  you  were 
under  the  impression,  or  rather  in  the  error  in  which  I  also 
was  at  one  time  held  captive,  and  of  which  I  have  not  even 
now  completely  rid  myself  ('  nondum  expugnavi '),  that  it 
is  necessary  to  perform  good  works  until  one  is  confident 

1  Letter  of  April  8,   1516,   "  Brief wechsel,"   1,  p.  29.     (De  Wette 
dates  it  April  7.) 

2  "  Luther  never  became  by  his  diligent  study  of  Tauler  a  mystic 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word.    He  makes  his  own  merely  the  language 
of  mysticism.    He  often  uses  the  same  expressions  as  Tauler,  but  with 
another  meaning,   indeed  he  even  unconsciously  imputes  to  Tauler 
his  own  views,"  H.  Bohmer,   "  Luther  im  Lichte  der  neueren  For- 
schung,"  Leipzig,  1906,  p.  35  (omitted  in  the  2nd  edition,  1910). 


90  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

of  being  able  to  appear  before  God  decked  out,  as  it  were, 
in  deeds  and  merits,  a  thing  which  is  utterly  impossible." 
Luther  is  desirous  of  hearing  what  Spenlein  now  thinks, 
"  whether  he  has  not  at  last  grown  sick  of  self-righteousness 
and  learnt  to  breathe  freely  and  trust  in  the  righteousness 
of  Christ."  "  If,  however,  you  believe  firmly  in  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ' — and  cursed  be  he  who  does  not — then  you 
will  be  able  to  bear  with  careless  and  erring  brothers  patiently 
and  charitably  ;  you  will  make  their  sins  your  own,"  as 
Christ  does  with  ours,  "and  in  whatever  good  you  do,  in 
that  you  will  allow  them  to  participate  ...  be  as  one  of 
them  and  bear  with  them.  To  think  of  flight  and  solitude, 
and  to  wish  to  be  far  away  from  those  who  we  think  are 
worse  than  ourselves,  that  is  an  unhappy  righteousness. 
.  .  .  On  the  contrary,  if  you  are  a  lily  and  a  rose  of  Christ, 
then  remember  that  you  must  be  among  thorns,  and  beware 
of  becoming  yourself  a  thorn  by  impatience,  rash  judgment 
and  secret  pride.  ...  If  Christ  had  willed  to  live  only 
amongst  the  good  or  to  die  only  for  His  friends,  for  whom, 
pray,  would  He  ever  have  died,  or  with  whom  would  He 
have  lived  ?  " 

Spenlein  was  then  no  longer  living  in  a  monastery  subject  to 
the  Rural  Vicar.  It  is  even  probable  that  he  had  left  Witten- 
berg and  the  new  Vicar's  district  on  account  of  differences 
of  opinion  on  the  matter  of  Observance.  He  betook  himself 
to  the  imperial  city  of  Memmingen,  presumably  because  a 
different  spirit  prevailed  in  the  monastery  there.  This  would 
seem  to  explain  how  Luther  came  to  speak  to  this  doubtless 
most  worthy  religious  of  "  unhappy  righteousness,"  inter- 
preting the  state  of  the  case  in  his  own  perverse  fashion. 

Among  the  other  letters  despatched  in  1516  that  to  Lang 
at  Erfurt  deserves  special  attention  ;  in  it  Luther  expresses 
himself  in  confidence,  quite  openly,  on  the  disapproval  of 
his  work  and  of  his  theological  standpoint  which  was  showing 
itself  at  Wittenberg  and  at  Erfurt.1 

His  study  of  St.  Augustine  had  put  him  in  a  position  to  recog- 
nise, on  internal  grounds,  that  a  work,  "  On  true  and  false 
penance,"  generally  attributed  to  this  African  Father,  was  not 
really  his.  He  tells  his  friend  that  his  opinion  of  the  book  had 
"  given  great  offence  to  all  "  ;  though  the  insipid  contents  of  the 
same  were  so  far  removed  from  the  spirit  of  Augustine,  yet  it 

1  September  (?),  1516,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  54  ff. 


91 

was  esteemed  because  it  had  been  quoted  and  employed  by 
Gratian  and  Peter  Lombard  as  one  of  Augustine's  works.  That 
he  had  been  aware  of  this  and  nevertheless  had  stood  up  for  the 
truth,  that  was  his  crime,  which  had  aroused  the  enmity  par- 
ticularly of  Dr.  Carlstadt ;  not,  however,  that  he  cared  very 
much  ;  both  Lombard  and  Gratian  had  done  much  harm  to 
consciences  by  means  of  this  stupid  book. 

His  opinion  regarding  the  spuriousness  of  the  work  was  in  tho 
end  generally  accepted,  even,  for  instance,  by  Bellarmine ; 
Trithemius,  moreover,  had  been  of  the  same  opinion  before 
Luther's  time  ;  in  his  attacks  on  its  contents,  however,  Luther, 
led  astray  by  his  false  ideas  of  penance,  exceeded  all  bounds,  and 
thus  vexed,  beyond  measure,  his  colleagues  who  at  that  time 
still  held  the  opposite  view. 

According  to  this  letter,  he  had  also  challenged  all  the  critics 
of  his  new  ideas  in  a  disputation  held  by  one  of  his  pupils  under 
his  direction.  "  They  barked  and  screeched  at  me  on  account  of 
my  lectures,  but  their  mouths  were  to  be  stopped  and  the  opinions 
of  others  heard."  It  was  a  question  of  defending  his  erroneous 
doctrine,  regarding  the  absolute  helplessness  of  nature,  which  he 
had  meantime  formulated,  and  to  which  we  shall  return  im- 
mediately. In  consequence,  he  says,  all  the  "  Gabrielists  "  (i.e. 
followers  of  the  scholastic  Gabriel  Biel)  here,  as  well  as  in  the 
Faculty  at  Erfurt,  were  nonplussed.  But  I  know  my  Gabriel  quite 
as  well  as  his  own  wonderful,  wonderstruck  worshippers ;  "  he 
writes  well,  but  as  soon  as  he  touches  on  grace,  charity,  hope,  and 
faith,  then,  like  Scotus  his  leader,  he  treads  in  the  footprints  of 
Pelagius."  Luther  was  quite  free  to  dissent  from  the  view,  even 
of  so  good  a  professor  as  Biel,  in  this  question  of  grace  and  virtue, 
but,  already  at  that  time,  he  had  denounced  as  Pelagian  several 
doctrines  of  the  Church.  Among  those  who  were  angered  was  the 
theologian  Nicholas  von  Amsdorf,  who  took  his  licentiate  at  the 
same  time  as  Luther,  and  became  later  on  his  close  friend. 
Amsdorf  secretly  sent  one  of  Luther's  theses,  of  which  he  dis- 
approved, to  Erfurt,  but  afterwards  allowed  himself  to  be 
pacified. 

The  humanistic  tendency  which  was  at  that  time  begin- 
ning to  make  its  way  had,  as  we  see  from  the  letters,  little 
part  in  the  rise  of  the  Lutheran  movement  at  Wittenberg. 

The  view  that  Luther's  new  teaching  was  due  to  the  direct 
influence  of  the  mode  of  thought  of  such  men  as  Hutten, 
Crotus  and  Mutian  is  incorrect.  On  the  contrary,  Luther, 
full  as  he  was  of  his  one-sided  supra-naturalism,  was  bound 
to  disapprove  of  the  Humanist  ideal  and  made  no  secret  of 
his  disapproval.  In  his  letters  in  1516  he  also  found  fault 
with  the  satirical  and  frivolous  attacks  of  the  Humanists 
on  the  state  of  the  Church  and  the  theological  learning  of 
the  day.  He  considered  the  "  Epistolce  obscurorum  virorum  " 


92  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

impudent,  and  called  the  author  a  clown.1  A  similar  work 
by  the  same  group  of  Humanists  against  the  "  Theolo- 
gasters,"  entitled  "  Tenor  supplicalionis  Pasquilliancc " 
• — as  he  informs  Spalatin,  himself  a  Humanist — he  had  held 
up  to  the  ridicule  of  his  colleagues,  as  it  richly  deserved  on 
account  of  the  invective  and  slanders  which  it  contained.2 

He  appealed  to  Spalatin  to  draw  the  attention  of  Erasmus  to 
his  misapprehension  of  righteousness  as  it  appears  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  ;  he  says  that  Erasmus  overrates  the  virtues  of 
heathen  heroes,  whereas  even  the  most  blameless  of  men,  even 
Fabricius  and  Regulus,  were  miles  away  from  righteousness  ; 
outside  of  faith  in  Christ  there  is,  according  to  him,  no  righteous- 
ness whatever  ;  Aristotle,  whom  everybody  follows,  likewise 
knew  nothing  of  this  righteousness  ;  but  Paul  and  Augustine 
teach  it ;  what  Paul  calls  self-righteousness  is  not  merely,  as 
Erasmus  says,  a  righteousness  founded  on  the  observances  of  the 
Mosaic  Law,  but  any  righteousness  whatever  which  springs  out 
of  works,  or  out  of  the  observance  of  any  law  ;  Paul  also  teaches 
original  sin  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  a 
fact  which  Erasmus  wrongly  denies.  With  regard  to  Augustine, 
he  could  unfold  to  him  (Erasmus)  St.  Paul's  meaning  better  than 
he  thinks,  but  he  should  diligently  read  the  writings  against  the 
Pelagians,  above  all  the  De  Spiritu  et  liltera.  Augustine  there 
takes  a  firm  stand  on  the  foundation  of  the  earlier  Fathers 
(Luther's  quotations  from  his  authorities  show  how  much 
the  study  had  fascinated  him).  But  after  Augustine's  day, 
dead  literalism  became  the  general  rule.  Lyra's  Bible  Com- 
mentary, for  instance,  is  full  of  it  ;  the  right  interpretation  of 
Holy  Scripture  is  also  wanting  in  Faber  Stapulensis,  notwith- 
standing his  many  excellencies.  Hence,  he  writes,  we  must  fall 
back  on  Augustine,  on  Augustine  rather  than  on  Jerome  to  whom 
Erasmus  gives  the  preference  in  Bible  matters,  for  Jerome  keeps 
too  much  to  the  historical  side  ;  he  recommends  Augustine  not 
merely  because  he  is  an  Augustinian  monk,  for  formerly  he  him- 
self did  not  think  him  worthy  of  consideration  until  he  "  fell  in  " 
(incidissem)  with  his  books.3 

Augustine's  "  On  the  Spirit  and  the  Letter,"  a  work  dedicated 
to  Marcellinus,  and  dating  from  the  end  of  412,  with  which 
Luther  had  become  acquainted  in  1515,  had  a  lasting  influence  on 
him.  In  this  book  the  great  Doctor  of  the  Church  strikes  at  the 
very  root  of  Pelagianism  and  shows  the  necessity,  for  the 
accomplishment  of  supernatural  good  works  ("  facer e  et  perficere 

1  To  Spalatin,  about  October  5,  1516,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  62. 

8  Ibid. 

3  To  Spalatin,  October  19,  1516,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  1,  p.  63.  Spalatin 
took  hts  advice,  as  his  letter  to  Erasmus  ("  Opp.  Erasmi,"  ed.  Lugd. 
Bat.,  3,  col.  1579  sq.)  shows.  The  letter  is  also  printed  in  "  Brief- 
wechsel,"  1,  p.  65. 


AGAINST   PELAGIANISM  93 

bonum  "),  of  inward  grace  which  he  calls  "  spiritus  "  in  contra- 
distinction to  outward  grace  which  he  terms  "  littera."  Luther, 
however,  referred  this  necessity  more  and  more  to  everything 
good,  even  to  what  is  purely  natural,  hence  his  loud  accusations 
soon  after  against  the  theology  of  the  Church  as  savouring  of 
Pelagianism. 

Humanism  at  that  time  stood  for  a  Pelagian  view  of  life  and 
therefore  could  not  be  altogether  sympathetic  to  Luther.  Its 
influence  on  him,  especially  in  his  youth,  cannot,  however,  be 
altogether  disregarded  ;  he  had  been  brought  into  too  close 
contact  with  it  in  his  student  days  and  also  during  his  theological 
course  at  Erfurt,  and  his  mind  was  too  lively  and  too  open  to  the 
currents  of  the  time  for  him  not  to  have  felt  something  of  its  effects. 
The  very  extravagance  of  his  criticism  of  things  theological  may, 
in  part,  be  traced  back  to  the  example  of  the  Humanists. 

From  Luther's  lectures  on  the  Psalms,  as  well  as  from 
his  sermons  and  letters  till  1516  inclusive,  we  have  adduced 
various  elements  which  may  be  considered  to  forebode  the 
greater  and  more  important  change  yet  to  come.  They 
are,  indeed,  not  exactly  precursors  of  what  one  designates 
usually  as  the  Reformation,  but  rather  of  the  new  Lutheran 
theology  which  was  responsible  for  that  upheaval  in  the 
ecclesiastical,  ethical  and  social  sphere  which  became  known 
as  the  Reformation. 

6.  The  Theological  Goal 

Before  continuing  in  a  more  systematic  form  the  examina- 
tion of  the  origin  of  Luther's  new  theology,  of  which  we  have 
just  seen  some  of  the  antecedents,  we  must  cast  a  glance 
at  the  erroneous  theological  result  which  Luther  had  already 
reached  in  1515-16,  and  which  must  be  considered  as  the 
goal  of  his  actual  development. 

Several  of  the  above  passages,  from  sermons  and  letters  of  the 
years  1515-16,  have  already  in  part  betrayed  the  result.  It 
appears,  however,  in  full  in  the  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  delivered  between  the  autumn,  1515,  and  the  summer, 
1516,  already  several  times  referred  to.1  Everyone  who  has 
followed  the  course  of  Luther  research  during  the  last  decade  will 
recall  the  commotion  aroused  when  Denifle  announced  the 
discovery  in  the  Vatican  Library  of  a  copy  hitherto  unknown 
of  Luther's  youthful  work  (Palat.  1826).  Much  labour  has  since 
been  expended  in  connection  with  the  numerous  passages  quoted 
from  it  by  this  scholar.  A  popular  Protestant  history  of  dogma 
even  attempted  to  arrange  Denifle's  quotations  so  as  to  form  with 

1  See  below,  chapter  vi.,  p.  1  ff. 


94  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

them  a  complete  picture.1  Meanwhile  a  complete  edition  of  the 
lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  has  been  brought  out  by 
Johann  Ficker  which  will  serve  as  the  foundation  for  a  proper 
treatment  of  the  new  material.  It  may,  however,  be  of  interest, 
and  serve  to  recall  the  literary  movement  of  the  last  few  years, 
if  we  here  sum  up  Luther's  errors  of  1516  according  to  the 
extracts  from  the  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  adduced 
by  Denifle.  The  present  writer,  on  the  ground  of  his  study  of  the 
Vatican  copy  undertaken  previous  to  the  appearance  of  Ficker's 
edition,  can  assure  the  reader  that  the  extracts  really  give  the 
kernel  of  the  lectures.  Some  additions  which  he  then  noted  as 
elucidating  Denifle's  excerpts  are  given  in  the  notes  according  to 
the  MS.  and  alongside  of  the  quotations  from  Denifle ;  every- 
where, however,  Ficker's  new  edition  has  also  been  quoted, 
reference  being  made  to  the  scholia,  or  to  the  glosses,  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  according  as  the  passages  are  taken  from 
the  one  or  the  other  part  of  Luther's  Commentary. 

The  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  really 
represents  the  first  taking  shape  of  Luther's  heretical 
views.  From  the  very  beginning  he  expresses  some  of  them 
without  concealment.  It  is  clear  that  during  his  prepara- 
tion for  these  lectures  in  the  summer  and  early  autumn  of 
1515  things  within  him  had  reached  a  climax,  and,  over- 
coming all  scruples,  he  determined  to  take  the  decisive 
step  of  laying  the  result  of  his  new  and  quite  peculiar  views 
before  his  audience  at  the  University.  At  the  very 
commencement  his  confident  theses  declare  that  the  com- 
mentator will  deduce  everything  from  Paul,  and  as  we 
proceed  we  see  more  and  more  clearly  how  his  immersion 
in  his  mistaken  interpretation  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
• — that  deep  well  of  apostolic  teaching' — led  him  to  propound 
the  false  doctrines  born  of  his  earlier  antipathy  for  Scholas- 
ticism and  liking  for  pseudo-mysticism. 

In  the  very  first  pages  Luther  endeavours  to  show  how 
imputed  righteousness  is  the  principal  doctrine  advocated 
by  St.  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Justification  by 
faith  alone  and  the  new  appreciation  of  works  is  expressed 
quite  openly. 

"  God  has  willed  to  save  us,"  this  he  represents  as  the  sum 
total  of  the  Epistle,  "  not  by  our  own  but  by  extraneous  righteous- 
ness and  wisdom,  not  by  such  as  is  in  us  or  produced  by  our 
inner  self,  but  by  that  which  comes  to  us  from  elsewhere."  "  We 

1  H.  Loofs,  "  Leitfaden  zum  Studium  der  Dogmengesch.,"  4,  1906, 
p.  702  fi. 


IMPUTED   RIGHTEOUSNESS  95 

must  rest  altogether  on  an  extraneous  and  foreign  righteousness," 
he  repeats,  "  and  therefore  destroy  our  own,  i.e.  our  homely 
righteousness  "  ("  non  per  domesticam  sed  per  extraneam  iustitiam," 
etc. ). 1  So  fascinated  is  he  by  the  terrifying  picture  of  self -righteous- 
ness and  holiness  by  works,  that  he  is  more  than  inclined  to 
weaken  the  inclination  for  good  works,  though  he  indeed  declares 
them  necessary  :  according  to  him  they  produce  in  man  a  self- 
consciousness  which  prevents  him  regarding  himself  as  un- 
righteous and  as  needing  the  justification  of  Christ.  The  truly 
righteous,  such  are  his  actual  words,  always  believe  "  that  they 
are  sinners  .  .  .  they  sigh  until  they  are  completely  cured  of 
concupiscence,  a  release  which  takes  place  at  death."  Everyone 
must  be  distrustful  even  of  his  good  intentions,  he  tells  his 
adversaries,  i.e.  "  those  who  trust  in  themselves,  who,  thinking 
they  are  in  possession  of  God's  grace,  cease  to  prove  themselves, 
and  sink  daily  into  greater  lukewarmness."  He  asks  ironically 
whether  "  they  acted  from  the  pure  love  of  God,"  for  now, 
erroneously,  he  will  allow  only  the  purest  love  of  God  as  a  motive. 2 
He  writes  :  "he  who  thinks,  that  the  greater  his  works,  the  more 
sure  he  is  of  salvation  shows  himself  to  be  an  unbeliever,  a  proud 
man  and  a  contemner  of  the  word.  It  does  not  depend  at  all  on 
the  multitude  of  works  [in  the  right  sense  this  was  admitted  by  the 
old  theologians]  ;  it  is  nothing  but  temptation  to  pay  any 
attention  to  this."  It  is  mere  "  wisdom  of  the  flesh,"  he  thinks, 
for  anyone  to  pay  attention  to  the  "difference  of  works"  rather 
than  to  the  word,  particularly  the  inward  word  and  its  impulses. 3 
Here  in  his  mystical  language  he  states  the  following  para- 
doxical thesis  :  "  the  wisdom  of  the  spiritually  minded  knows 
neither  good  nor  evil  ("  prudentia  spiritualium  neque  bonum 
neque  malum  scit  ")  ;  it  keeps  its  eyes  fixed  always  on  the  word, 
not  on  the  work."4  He  concludes  :  "  let  us  only  close  our  eyes, 
listen  in  simplicity  to  the  word,  and  do  what  it  commands 
whether  it  be  foolish  or  evil  or  great  or  small  "  ("  sive  stultum  sive 
malum,  sive  magnum  sive  parvum  prcecipiat,  hoc  faciamus  ").5  As 
righteousness  does  not  proceed  from  works  we  must  so  much 
the  more  cling  to  imputation.  "  Our  works  are  nothing,  we  find 
in  ourselves  nothing  but  thoughts  which  accuse  us  ...  where 

1  "  Cod.  Vat.  Palat.    1826,"  fol.  77  ;   Denifle,  I2,  "  Quellenbelege," 
p.  313  f.  ;    "  Scholia  to  Romans  "  (Ficker),  p.  2. 

2  Fol.  121'  and  122.     "  Scholia  to  Rom.,"  p.  73  :  "  (lusti)  gemunt 
et  implorant  gratiam  Dei  .  .  .  credunt  semper,  se  esse  peccatores.  .  .  . 
Sic  humiliantur  sic  plorant,  sic  gemunt,  donee  perfecte  sanentur,  quod 
fit  in  morte.  .  .  .  Si  dixerimus  quod  peccatum  non  habemus,  nos  ipsos 
seducimus  (1  Io.,  i.  8).  ...  Confisi  se  iam  habere  gratiam  Dei  omittunt 
sua  secreta  rimari,  tepescunt  cotidie,"  etc.     The  passage  is  a  continua- 
tion of  that  quoted  by  Denifle- Weiss,   "Luther,"   I2,  p.  463,  n.   10, 
and  makes  the  latter  appear  in   a  different  sense  somewhat  more 
favourable  to  the  righteous. 

3  Fol.  230  ff.      "  Scholia  to  Rom.,"  p.  241  f.,  in  Denifle,  I2,  "  Quel- 
lenbelege," p.  329. 

4  Ibid. 

5  Ibid.,  "  Scholia  to  Rom.,"  p.  243. 


96  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

shall  we  find  defenders  ?  Nowhere  but  in  Christ  .  .  .  the  heart, 
it  is  true,  reproves  a  man  for  his  evil  works,  it  accuses  him  and 
witnesses  against  him.  But  he  who  believes  in  Christ  turns  at 
once  [from  himself]  to  Christ  and  says  :  He  has  done  enough,  Ho 
is  righteous,  He  is  my  defence,  He  died  for  me,  He  has  made  His 
righteousness  mine  and  my  sin  His.  But  if  He  has  made  my  sin 
His,  then  it  is  no  longer  mine  and  I  am  free.  If  He  has  made  His 
righteousness  mine,  then  I  am  righteous  through  the  same 
righteousness  as  He."1 

Here  then  the  sinner,  as  Luther  teaches  in  his  letter  to  Spenlein 
(see  above,  p.  88  ff.),  simply  casts  himself  upon  Christ  and  hides 
himself  just  as  he  is  "  under  the  wings  of  the  hen  "  (p.  80), 
comforting  himself  with  the  doctrine  of  imputation.  The  old 
Church,  on  the  contrary,  not  only  pointed  to  the  merits  of  Christ 
(see  above,  pp.  10,  18)  but  also  to  the  exhortations  of  St.  Paul 
where  he  calls  for  zealous,  active  co-operation  with  the  Divine 
grace,  for  inward  conversion  in  the  spirit,  for  works  of  penance 
and  for  purification  from  sin  by  contrition  in  order  that  our 
reconciliation  with  God  and  real  pardon  may  become  possible. 
Hence,  while  the  Catholic  doctrine  conceives  of  justification  as 
an  interior,  organic  process,  Luther  is  beginning  to  take  it  as 
something  exterior  and  mechanical,  as  a  process  which  results  from 
the  pushing  forward  of  a  foreign  righteousness,  as  if  it  were  a 
curtain.  He  turns  away  from  the  Catholic  doctrine  according  to 
which  a  man  justified  by  a  living  and  active  faith  is  really  in- 
corporated in  Christ  as  the  shoot  is  grafted  into  the  olive  tree,  or 
the  branch  on  the  vine,  i.e.  to  a  new  life,  to  an  interior  ennobling 
through  sanctifying  grace  and  the  infused  supernatural  virtues  of 
faith,  hope  and  charity. 

Nevertheless  Luther  himself  was  affrighted  at  the  theory  of 
faith  alone,  and  imputation.  He  feared  lest  he  should  be  re- 
proached with  setting  good  works  aside  with  his  doctrine  of 
imputed  merit.  He  therefore  explains  in  self-defence  that  he 
did  not  desire  a  bare  faith  ;  "  the  hypocrites  and  the  lawyers  " 
thought  they  would  be  saved  by  such  a  faith,  but  according  to 
Paul's  words  a  faith  was  requisite  by  which  we  "  approach 
Christ  "  ("  per  quern  habemus  accessum  per  fidem,"  Rom.  v.  2). 
Those  are  therefore  in  error  who  go  forward  in  Christ  with  over- 
great  certainty,  but  not  by  faith  ;  as  though  they  would  be  saved 
by  Christ,  for  not  doing  anything  themselves  and  giving  no  sign 
of  faith.  These  possess  too  much  faith,  or,  better  still,  none  at 
all.  Both  must  exist  :  "by  faith  "  and  "  by  Christ  "  ;  we  must 
do  and  suffer  gladly  all  that  we  can  in  the  faith  of  Christ,  and  yet 
account  ourselves  in  all  things  unprofitable  servants,  and  only 
through  Christ  alone  think  ourselves  able  to  go  to  God.  For  the 

1  Fol.  104.  Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  465,  n.  1  ;  "  Schol.  to  Rom.," 
p.  44.  Cp.  the  passage  fol.  152  Denifle-Weiss,  P,  p.  527,  n.  1  ;  "  Schol. 
to  Rom.,"  p.  121,  where  Luther's  addition,  omitted  by  Denifle,  sums 
up  everything  :  "  Ideo  omnes  in  iniquitate  id  est  iniuslitia  nascimur, 
morimur,  sola  autem  reputatione  miserentis  Dei  per  fidem  verbi  eius 
iusti  aumua." 


JUSTIFICATION  DOUBTFUL          97 

object  of  works  of  faith  is  to  make  us  worthy  of  Christ  and  of  the 
refuge  and  protection  of  His  righteousness."1  With  this  is  con- 
nected Luther's  insistence  on  the  necessity  of  invoking  God's 
grace  in  order  that  we  may  be  able  to  fight  against  our  passions 
and  to  bring  forth  good  works,  and  in  order  that  the  passions, 
which  in  themselves  are  sin,  may  not  be  imputed  by  God. 2  Thus 
can  "  the  body  of  sin  be  destroyed  "  and  the  "  old  man  over- 
come."3 Luther  admits,  though  with  hesitation  and  in  contra- 
diction with  himself,  works  which  prepare  us  for  justification.* 

In  spite  of  everything,  in  this  first  stage  of  his  develop- 
ment, justification  appears  to  him  uncertain.  He  declares 
in  so  many  words  :  "  We  cannot  know  whether  we  are 
justified  and  whether  we  believe";  and  he  can  only  add 
rather  lamely  :  "we  must  look  upon  our  works  as  works 
of  the  Law  and  be,  in  humility,  sinners,  hoping  only  to  be 
justified  through  the  mercy  of  Christ."5  He  has  no  "  joyful 
assurance  of  salvation  "• — which,  in  fact,  had  no  place 

1  Fol.   159.     "  Schol.  to  Rom.,"  p.   132,  where  he  reproves  those 
"  qui  nimium  securi  incedunt  per  Christum,  non  per  fidem,  quasi  sic 
per  Christum  salvandi  sint,  ut  ipsi  nihil  operentur,  nihil  exhibeant  de 
fide.     Hi  nimiam  habent  fidem,  immo  nullam.     Quare  utrumque  fieri 
oportet    '  per   fidem,'    '  per   Christum,'   ut   in  fide   Christi,   omnia,   quce 
possumus,  faciamus  atque  patiamur  ;  et  tamen  Us  omnibus  servos  inutiles 
nos  agnoscamus,   per  Christum  solum  sufficientes  nos  confidamus  ad 
accessum  Dei.     Omnibus  enim  operibus  fidei  id  agilur,  ut  Christo  et 
iustitice  eius  refugio  ac  protectione  digni  efficiamur." 

2  Fol.   190.     Denifle-Weiss,   I2,  p.  518,  n.   1  ;    "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p. 
165  f. 

3  Fol.   173.      "Schol.   Rom.,"  p.   156,  he  says  of  the  text:    "  ut 
destruatur  corpus  peccati  "  (Rom.  vi.  6)  :    "  Destrui  corpus  peccati  est 
concupiscentias  carnis  et  veteris  hominis  frangi  laboribus  pcenitentice 
et  crucis,  ac  sic  de  die  in  diem  minui  eas  ac  mortificari,  ut  Col.  iii.  (v.  5). 
'  Mortificate  membra  vestra,    quce  sunt   super  terram.'      Sicut   ibidem 
clarissime  describit  utrunque  hominem  novum  et  veterem." 

4  Fol.   100  and   100'.      "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.   38  f.  ;    Denifle-Weiss, 
I2,  p.  44,  n.  1,  where,  however  (line  9),  the  Vatican  copy  reads  rightly 
"  potuit,"  not  "  oportuit  "  ;   line  11  should  read  "  summum  ens,  quod." 
Both  are  correct  in  Ficker.    The  words  "  legem  impleverunt,"  line  15, 
really  belong  to  another  passage. 

5  Fol.    132'.      To    supplement    the    quotation    (Denifle-Weiss,    1, 
p.  468),  which  is  incompletely  quoted,  I  have  taken  from  the  Vatican  MS. 
(Ficker,   "  Scholia  to  Rom.,"  p.  89)  the  following  :    "  Qui  autem  sic 
timuerit  et  humiliter  confessus  fuerit,  dabitur  ei  gratia  ut  iustificetur 
et  dimittatur  peccatum,  si  quid  forte  per  occultam  et  ignoratam  incredu- 
litatem  fecerit.     Sic  lob  verebatur  omnia  opera  sua.     Et  Apostolus  non 
sibi  conscius  fuit,  et  tamen  non  in  hoc  se  iustificatum  putat.    Ac  per  hoc 
soli  Christo  iustilia  relinquitur,  soli  ipsi  opera  gratice  et  spiritus  ;   nos 
autem   semper   in   operibus   legis,    semper   iniusti,    semper   peccatores, 
secundum    illud    Ps.    xxxi.    (v.    6)  :    '  Pro    hoc    orabit    ad    te    omnis 
sanctus.'  "     There  follows  an  invective  against  the  proud  man  :    "qui 
se.  credere  putat  et  omnem  fidem  possidere  perfecte." 


98  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

whatever  in  the  new  teaching  as  expounded  by  Luther 
himself- — and  its  name  is  always  drowned  by  the  loud  cry 
of  sin.  Even  saints,  on  account  of  the  sin  which  still  clings 
to  them,  do  not  know  whether  they  are  pleasing  to  God. 
If  they  are  well  advised,  they  b<?g  solely  for  the  forgiveness 
of  their  sin  which  lies  like  lead  on  their  conscience.  "That 
is,"  the  mystic  explains,  "  the  wisdom  which  is  hidden  in 
secret1'  ("  abscondita  in  mysterio"),  because  our  righteous- 
ness "  being  entirely  dependent  on  God's  decree  remains 
unknown  to  us."  * 

Luther  cannot  assure  us  sufficiently  often  that  man  is 
nothing  but  sin,  and  sins  in  everything.  His  reason  is  that 
concupiscence  remains  in  man  after  baptism.  This  con- 
cupiscence he  looks  upon  as  real  sin,  in  fact  it  is  the  original 
sin,  enduring  original  sin,  so  that  original  sin  is  not  removed 
by  baptism,  remains  obdurate  to  all  subsequent  justifying 
grace,2  and,  until  death,  can,  at  the  utmost,  only  be 
diminished.  He  says  expressly,  quite  against  the  Church's 
teaching,  that  original  sin  is  only  covered  over  in  baptism, 
and  he  tries  to  support  this  by  a  misunderstood  text  from 
Augustine  and  by  misrepresenting  Scholasticism.3 

Augustine  teaches  with  clearness  and  precision  in  many 
passages  that  original  sin  is  blotted  out  by  baptism  and  entirely 
remitted  ;*  Luther,  however,  quotes  him  to  the  opposite  effect. 
The  passage  in  question  occurs  in  De  nuptiis  et  concupiscentia 
(L,  c.  xxv.,  n.  28)  where  Luther  makes  this  Father  say:  sin 
(peccatum)  is  forgiven  in  baptism,  not  so  that  it  no  longer  remains, 
but  that  it  is  no  longer  imputed.5  Whereas  what  Augustine 
actually  says  is  :  the  concupiscence  of  the  flesh  is  forgiven,  etc. 
("  dimitti  concupiscentiam  carnis  non  ut  non  sit,  sed  ut  in  peccatum 
non  imputetur  ").  And  yet  Luther  was  acquainted  with  the  true 
reading  of  the  passage — which  is  really  opposed  to  his  view — as 
he  had  annotated  it  in  the  margin  of  the  Sentences  of  Peter 
Lombard,  where  it  is  correctly  given. 6  Luther,  after  having  thus 

1  Fol.  154.     "  Scholia  Rom.,"  p.  124.     The  saints  begged  for  for- 
giveness because  in  them  "  peccatum  manifestum  est  cum  ipsis,  apud 
se   ipsos   et  in   conscientia  sua.  .  .  .  Ne   desperent   misericordiam  in 
Christo  invocant  et  ita  exaudiuntur.     Hcec  est  sapientia  abscondita  in 
mysterio."    He  concludes  :   our  righteousness  is  unknown  to  us,  "  quia 
in  ipso  et  consilio  eius  (Dei)  tota  pendet.'" 

2  Passages  in  Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  470  ff.  ;  p.  482  ff.     Cp.  p.  442  ff. 

3  Fol.  144'.    Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  455,  n.  4,  and  p.  482,  n.  3 ;  "  Schol. 
Rom.,"  p.  108  ft. 

4  Cp.  Denifle,  1,  p.  457  ff. 

6  "  Scholia  to  Rom.,"  p.   109. 
«  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  9,  p.  75. 


HIS  MISAPPREHENSIONS  99 

twisted  the  passage  as  above,  employs  if  frequently  later.1  In 
the  original  lecture  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  he  has,  it  is 
true,  added  to  the  text,  after  the  word  "  peccatum,"  the  word 
"  concupiscentia,"  as  the  new  editor  points  out,  in  excuse  of 
Luther. 2  But  on  the  preceding  page  Luther  adds  in  exactly  the 
same  way  in  two  passages  of  his  own  text  where  he  speaks  of 
"  peccatum,"  the  word  "  concupiscentia,"  so  that  his  addition  to 
Augustine  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  mere  correction  of  a  false 
citation,  all  the  less  since  the  incorrect  form  is  found  unaltered 
elsewhere  in  his  writings.3 

As  regards  Scholasticism,  Luther  holds  that  its  teaching  on 
original  sin  was  very  faulty,  because  it  "  dreamt  "  that  original 
sin,  like  actual  sin,  was  entirely  removed  (by  baptism).4  This  is 
one  of  his  first  attacks  on  a  particular  doctrine  of  Scholasticism, 
his  earlier  opposition  having  been  to  Scholasticism  in  general. 
The  blame  he  here  administers  presupposes  the  truth  of  his  view 
that  concupiscence  and  original  sin  come  under  the  same  category, 
and  that  the  former  is  culpable.  Almost  all  the  Scholastics  had 
made  the  essence  of  original  sin  to  consist  in  the  loss  of  original 
justice,  whilst  allowing  that  its  "  materiale,"  as  they  called  it, 
lay  in  concupiscence,  so  that  without  any  "dream"  it  was  quite 
easy  to  conceive  of  original  sin  as  blotted  out,  while  the 
"materiale"  or  " fomes  peccati"  or  concupiscence  remained.5 
Other  examples  of  how  Luther,  partly  owing  to  his  ignorance  of 
true  Scholasticism,  came  to  bring  the  most  glaring  charges 
against  that  school,  will  be  given  later. 

Actual  sins  remain,  according  to  Luther,  even  after 
forgiveness,  for  they  too  are  only  covered  over.  Formerly, 
it  is  true,  he  admits  having  believed  that  repentance  and 
the  sacrament  of  penance  removed  everything  ("  omnia 
ablata  putabam  et  evacuata,  etiam  intrinsece  "),  and  therefore 
in  his  madness  he  had  thought  himself  better  after  confession 
than  those  who  had  not  confessed.6  "Thus  I  struggled 
with  myself,  not  knowing  that  whilst  forgiveness  is  certainly 
true,  yet  there  is  no  removal  of  sin." 

1  Thus   "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,   2,    pp.   414  and   731  ;     4,  p.   691  ; 
7,  pp.  110  and  344  ;    8,  p.  93.     "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  15,  p.  54  ;    16,  p. 
141  ;    63,  p.   131  ;     "  Tischreden,"  ed.  Forstemann,   2,  p.   42  ;    4,  p. 
391  ;  etc.    Cp.  Denifle,  1,  p.  461.    He  may  in  time  have  come  to  believe 
the  words  were  really  Augustine's. 

2  Ficker,  p.  xli.  and  xxix. 

3  Cp.  Denifle,  1,  p.  457  ff.,  on  the  whole  question  ;    he  also  points 
out  two  other  falsifications  of  Augustine's  views  committed  by  Luther. 

4  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  108. 

5  Cp.  Denifle,  1,  pp.  458,  502  ff. 

6  Fol.  144'.   Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  455,  n.  4  ;  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  109. 
The  continuation  of  this  passage,  which  is  not  without  importance,  is  : 
"  Ita  mecum  pugnavi,  nesciens  quod  remissio  quidem  vera  sit,  sed  tamen 
non  sit  ablatio  peccati" 


100  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Not  only  does  real  sin  continue  to  dwell  in  man  through 
concupiscence,  but,  according  to  a  further  statement  of 
Luther,  the  keeping  of  God's  law  is  impossible  to  man. 
"As  we  cannot  keep  God's  commandments  we  are  really 
always  in  unrighteousness,  and  therefore  there  remains 
nothing  for  us  but  to  fear  and  to  beg  for  remission  of  the 
unrighteousness,  or  rather  that  it  may  not  be  imputed, 
for  it  is  never  altogether  remitted,  but  remains  and  requires 
the  act  of  non-imputation.1 

But  how,  then,  he  must  have  asked  himself  in  following 
out  the  train  of  thought  of  his  new  system,  if,  owing  to  the 
depravity  of  human  nature  as  the  result  of  original  sin 
there  remains  in  man  no  freedom  in  the  choice  of  good  ? 
"  Where  does  the  freedom  of  the  will  come  in  ?  "  he  asks, 
as  it  follows  from  the  Apostle's  teaching  that  "  the  keeping 
of  the  law  is  simply  impossible  "  ("  scepius  dixi,  simpliciter 
esse  impossibile  legem  implere?  ").2  He  hesitates,  it  is  true, 
to  deny  free  will,  but  only  for  a  moment,  and  then  tells  us 
boldly  that  the  will  has  been  robbed  of  its  freedom  (of 
choosing)  good.  "  Had  I  said  this,  people  would  curse  me," 
but,  according  to  him,  it  is  St.  Paul  who  advocates  the 
doctrine  that  without  grace  there  is  no  freedom  of  the  will 
in  the  choice  of  good  which  can  please  God.3  Here  we  have 
a  foretaste  of  the  doctrine  Luther  was  to  express  at  the 
Leipzig  disputation  and  elsewhere,  viz.  that  the  freedom 
of  the  will  for  good  is  merely  a  name  ("  res  de  solo  titulo  "),4 
and  of  that  later  terrible  thesis  of  his  that  free  will  in  general 
is  dead  ("  liberum  arbitrium  est  mortuum"),5  a  thesis  he 
defended  more  particularly  against  Erasmus. 

The  young  Monk  was  thus  prepared  to  admit  all  the 
consequences  of  his  new  ideas,  whereas  the  Apostle  Paul, 
more  particularly  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  recognises 

1  Fol.  153'.    "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  124  :    "  Igitur  ex  quo  Dei  prceceptum 
implere  non  possumus  ac  per  hoc  semper  iniusti  merito  sumus,  nihil 
restat,  [quarn]  ut  indicium  semper  timeamus  et  pro  remissions  iniustiiice, 
immo  pro  nonimputatione  oremus  ;    quia  nunquam  remittitur  omnino, 
sed  manet  et  indiget  non  imputatione."     Of  the  true  Catholic  doctrine, 
re  the  inability  of  man  and  God's  grace,  Denifle  treats  very  well  (1, 
pp.  416-27). 

2  Fol.  193.    Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  508,  n.  1  ;   "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  183. 

3  Ibid. 

4  J.  Kostlin,  "Luthers  Theologie,"   I2,  p.  215.     Cp.  2,  p.   124. 

5  Denifle-Weiss,   I2,  p.  509  ;    Kostlin,  22,  p.  50,  quotes,  amongst 
others,  Luther's  later  thesis  that  mere  human  reason  can  only  take 
for  good  what  is  evil. 


"DOING  GOOD   WE   SIN"  101 

the  ability  of  man  for  natural  goodness,  and  speaks  of  the 
law  of  nature  in  the  heathen  world  and  the  possibility  and 
actuality  of  its  observance.  "  They  do  by  nature  the  things 
of  the  law  "  (Rom.  ii.  14).  Luther  will  only  allow  that  they 
do  such  things  by  means  of  grace,  and  the  word  grace  again 
he  uses  merely  for  the  grace  of  justification.  His  opinion 
with  regard  to  the  virtues  of  the  heathen  sages  is  noteworthy. 
He  says  that  the  philosophers  of  olden  time  had  to  be 
damned,  although  they  may  have  been  virtuous  from  their 
very  inmost  soul  ("  ex  ammo  et  medullis  "),  because  they 
had  at  least  experienced  some  self-satisfaction  in .  their 
virtue,  and,  in  consequence  of  the  sinfulness  of  nature, 
must  necessarily  have  succumbed  to  sinful  love  of  self.1 
Not  long  after,  i.e.  as  early  as  1517,  he  declares  in  his  MS. 
Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  their  virtues 
to  be  merely  vices  ("  revera  sunt  vitia  ").2 

But  what  place  is  given  to  the  virtues  of  the  righteous 
in  Christianity  ?  "  As  even  the  righteous  man  is  depraved 
by  sin  he  cannot  be  inwardly  righteous  without  the  mercy 
of  God.  ...  In  the  believers  and  in  those  who  sigh  un- 
righteousness is  absent  only  because  Christ  comes  to  their 
assistance  with  the  fulness  of  His  sinlessness,  and  covers 
over  their  imperfections."3  Even  when  we  "  do  good,  we 
sin  "  ("  bene  operando  peccamus  "),  so  runs  his  paradoxical 
thesis  ;  "  but  Christ  covers  over  what  is  wanting  and  does 
not  impute  it."  And  why  do  we  always  sin  in  doing  good  ? 
"  Because  owing  to  concupiscence  and  sensuality  we  do 
not  perform  the  good  with  the  intensity  and  purity  of 
intention  which  the  law  demands,  i.e.  not  with  all  our  might 
('  ex  omnibus  viribus,'  Luke  x.  27),  the  desires  of  the  flesh 
being  too  strong."4  The  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  teaches 
that  good  works  done  in  the  state  of  sanctifying  grace  are 
pleasing  to  God  in  spite  of  concupiscence,  which,  it  is  true, 
remains  after  baptism  and  after  the  blotting  out  of  original 

1  Fol.  77.     Denifle,  I2  "  Quellenbelege,"  p.  313  ;    "  Schol.  Rom.," 
p.  1. 

2  Fol.    75'.   Vatican   MS.   of   Commentary   on   Hebrews ;    Denifle- 
Weiss,  I2,  p.  528,  n.  2. 

3  Fol.  153'.     "Rom.  Schol.,"  p.  123  :  in  the  continuation  of  passage 
quoted  by  Denifle-Weiss,   I2,  p.   503,  n.   5:     "  Non  potest  intus  sine 
misericordia   Dei   iustus    esse,    quum   sit  fomite    corruptus.  .  .  .  Quce 
iniquitas  non  invenitur  in  credentibua  et  gementibus  quia  succurit  eis 
Christus  de  plenitudine  puritatis  suce  et  tegit  eorum  hoc  imperfectum." 

4  Fol.  153.    Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  503,  n.  5  ;    "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  123. 


102  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

sin  which  ensued,  but  which  is  not  sinful  so  long  as  there  is 
no  consent  to  its  enticements. 

As  regards  the  distinction  between  mortal  and  venial 
sin,  we  find  Luther's  doctrine  has  already  reached  its  later 
standpoint,  according  to  which  there  is  no  difference  between 
them.  In  the  same  way  he  already  denies  the  merit  of  good 
works.  "  It  is  clear,"  he  writes,  "  that  according  to  sub- 
stance and  nature  venial  sin  does  not  exist,  and  that  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  merit."1  All  sins,  in  his  opinion,  are 
mortal,  because  even  the  smallest  contains  the  deadly 
poison  of  concupiscence.  With  regard  to  merit,  according 
to  him,  even  "  the  saints  have  no  merit  of  their  own,  but 
only  Christ's  merits."2  Even  in  their  actions  the  motive 
of  perfect  love  was  not  sufficiently  lively.  "If  it  might  be 
done  unpunished  and  there  were  no  expectation  of  reward, 
then  even  the  good  man  would  omit  the  good  and  do  evil 
like  the  bad."3 

With  this  pessimistic  view  of  Luther's  we  conclude  our 
preliminary  glance  at  the  theological  goal  to  which  his 
development  had  led  him.  We  will  not  at  present  pursue 
further  the  theme  of  pessimism  which  might  be  brought  out 
more  clearly  in  the  light  of  the  doctrine  contained  in  his 
Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  regarding 
absolute  predestination  to  hell,  and  resignation  to  hell  as 
the  highest  act  of  virtue.4  All  the  new  doctrines  we  have 
passed  in  review  may  be  regarded  as  forerunners  of  the  great 
revolution  soon  to  come  ;  we  see  here  in  these  questions 
of  doctrine  the  utter  lack  of  respect  and  the  boldness  which 
the  originator  of  this  revolutionary  theology  will,  later  on, 
manifest  against  the  Church,  when  it  became  clear  that, 
without  being  untrue  to  herself,  she  could  not  approve  his 
teaching.  Meanwhile  the  connection  of  these  doctrines 
among  themselves  and  with  the  coming  world-historic 
movement  calls  for  further  elucidation.  We  need  offer  no 
excuse  for  attempting  this  in  detail  in  the  following  pages. 

1  Fol.    153.      "  Schol.    Rom.,"    p.    123  :     "  Patet   quod  nullum   eat 
peccatum  veniale  ex  substantia  et  natura  sua  sed  nee  meritum." 

2  Fol.  153'.    "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  124  :    "  Dicis,  ut  quid  ergo  merita 
sanctorum  adeo  prcedicantur.     Eespondeo,  quod  non  sunt  eorum  merita, 
sed  Christi  in  eis." 

3  Fol.    121,     121' ;     Denifle-Weiss,    I2,   p.    453 ;     "  Schol.    Rom.," 
p.  73  f. 

4  On  Predestination  see  below,  chapter  vi.  2. 


LUTHER   RESEARCH  103 

The  history  of  Luther's  development  has  passed  into  the 
foreground  of  literary  interest  by  reason  of  the  works 
which  have  appeared  within  the  last  few  years,  and,  owing 
to  the  numerous  sources  and  particular  studies  recently 
published,  the  historian  is  now  in  the  fortunate  position  of 
being  able  to  offer  a  sure  solution  of  much  that  has  hitherto 
been  doubtful  on  a  subject  which  has  always  exercised, 
and  doubtless  will  continue  to  exercise,  people's  minds. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE    STARTING-POINT 

1.  Former  Inaccurate  Views 

THE  views  formerly  current  with  regard  to  the  origin  of 
Luther's  struggle  against  the  old  Church  were  due  to  an 
insufficient  knowledge  of  history,  and  might  be  ignored 
were  it  not  that  their  after  effects  still  remain  in  literature. 

It  will  be  sufficient  to  mention  three  of  these  views.  It 
was  said  that  the  Church's  teaching  on  Indulgences,  and 
the  practices  of  the  Quaestors  or  Indulgence-preachers, 
first  brought  Luther  into  antagonism  with  the  Church 
authorities  and  then  gradually  entangled  him  more  and 
more  in  the  great  struggle  regarding  other  erroneous  teach- 
ings and  usages.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  question  of  In- 
dulgences was  raised  only  subsequent  to  Luther's  first  great 
departures  from  the  Church's  doctrine. 

Then  it  was  said  that  the  far-seeing  teacher  of  Wittenberg 
had  from  the  very  first  directed  his  attention  to  the  reforma- 
tion of  the  whole  Church,  which  he  found  sunk  in  abuses, 
and  had  therefore  commenced  with  a  doctrinal  reform  as 
a  necessary  preliminary.  As  though  Luther — this  is  what 
this  childish  view  presupposes- — had  before  him  from  the 
beginning  the  plan  of  his  whole  momentous  work,  or  sat 
down  to  draw  up  a  general  programme  for  the  reforma- 
tion of  doctrine,  commencing  with  the  fall  of  Adam.  We 
are  to  believe  that  the  Monk  at  once  severed  all  connecting 
ties  with  the  whole  of  the  past,  in  faith  as  well  as  in  the 
practical  conception  of  the  Church's  life  ;  that  he  went 
through  no  previous  long  inward  process,  attended  for  him 
by  a  weary  conflict  of  soul ;  that,  in  fact,  such  a  world- 
stirring  revolution  had  been  dependent  on  the  will  of  one 
man,  and  was  not  the  result  of  the  simultaneous  action  of 
many  factors  which  had,  at  the  outset,  been  ignored  and  not 
taken  into  consideration.  The  whole  struggle  for  the  "  better- 

104 


THE   STARTING-POINT  105 

ment  of  the  Church"  was  a  gradual  development,  and  the 
co-operating  elements  led  their  originator,  both  in  his 
teaching  and  his  practical  changes,  far  beyond  what  he 
had  originally  aimed  at.  When  Luther,  brooding  over 
original  sin,  grace  and  justification,  first  began  to  set  up 
his  new  ideas  against  the  so-called  self-righteous  and  "  little 
Saints  "  of  his  immediate  surroundings,  he  did,  it  is  true, 
now  and  again  speak  excitedly  of  the  reforms  necessary 
to  meet  certain  phases  of  the  great  decline  in  the  public 
life  of  the  Church  ;  but  the  Doctor  of  Holy  Scripture  was, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  far  more  preoccupied  with  the  question 
of  the  theology  of  Paul  and  Augustine  than  with  the  abuses 
in  the  Church  and  outer  world,  which  were,  to  tell  the  truth, 
very  remote  from  the  Monk's  cell  and  lecture-room. 

The  third  view  is  also  incorrect  which  has  it  that  it  was 
rivalry  between  two  Orders,  viz.  dissatisfaction  and  envy 
on  the  part  of  the  Augustinians  against  the  Dominicans, 
which  set  the  Monk  on  his  career.  The  Augustinians,  it 
was  said,1  were  annoyed  with  the  rival  Order  because  the 
preaching  of  the  Indulgence  had  been  entrusted  to  its 
members  and  not  rather  to  so  capable  a  man  as  Luther. 
Notwithstanding  the  early  date  at  which  this  charge  was 
made,  even  by  Luther's  own  contemporaries,  the  fact 
remains,  that  not  only  were  there  Augustinian  Indulgence- 
preachers,  as,  for  instance,  Johann  Paltz,  but  that  Luther's 
erroneous  teaching  had  already  made  its  appearance  before 
he  had  as  yet  commenced  his  struggle  with  Tetzel,  and 
before  he  had  even  thought  of  the  Dominicans  Prierias  and 
Cardinal  Cajetan.  Jealousy  against  his  adversaries,  the 
Dominicans,  afterwards  added  fuel  to  the  flame,  but  it  was 
not  the  starting-point. 

Moreover,  in  treating  here  of  Luther's  starting-point, 
we  are  not  seeking  to  determine,  as  was  the  case  with  the 

1  Assertions  in  this  sense  lightly  made  by  Cochlaeus  and  Emser 
were  accepted  as  true  by  later  writers,  such  as  Cardinal  Stanislaus 
Hosius  in  his  "  Confutatio  prolegomenorum  Brentii  "  ;  thus  the  legend 
finds  acceptance  even  among  recent  polemics.  Emser  only  said, 
"  he  was  now  beginning  to  suspect  "  that  Luther  had  come  forward 
because  there  was  "  nothing  to  be  made  out  of  the  indulgence  business 
for  you  (Luther)  or  your  party,  and  because  Tetzel  and  his  followers 
instead  of  your  party  were  entrusted  with  the  indulgence  business." 
"  A  venatione  Luteriana  Mgocerotis  assertio,"  fol.  c.,  November,  1519. 
Cochlseus  meant  his  accusation  rather  more  seriously,  but  brings 
forward  no  proofs. 


106  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

three  views  mentioned  above,  the  origin  and  points  of 
contact  of  the  whole  movement  comprised  under  the  name 
of  the  Reformation,  but  only  of  the  first  rise  of  Luther's 
new  opinions  on  doctrine.  These  originated  quite  apart 
from  any  attempt  at  external  reform  of  the  Church,  and 
were  equally  remote  from  the  idea  of  breaking  away  from 
the  Pope  or  of  proclaiming  freedom  of  belief  or  unbelief, 
though  many  have  fancied  that  these  were  Luther's  first 
aims. 

Points  of  contact  have  been  sought  for  not  only  in 
Humanism  and  its  criticism  of  Church  doctrine,  but  more 
particularly  in  the  teaching  and  tenets  of  Hus,  Luther's 
starting-point  being  traced  back  to  his  deep  study  of  the 
writings  of  John  Hus,  which  had  ultimately  led  him  to 
revive  his  errors  ;  most  of  Luther's  theses,  so  we  are  told, 
were  merely  a  revival  of  Hus's  teaching.  This  view  calls 
for  a  closer  examination  than  the  others. 

A  priori  we  might  easily  fancy  that  he  had  been  led  to 
his  teaching  on  the  Church  by  means  of  the  writings  of 
Wiclif  and  Hus,  for  here  we  do  find  a  great  similarity.  But 
it  is  precisely  this  teaching  on  the  Church  which  is  not  to 
be  found  amongst  his  earlier  errors  ;  he  reached  his  views 
on  this  subject  only  as  a  result  of  the  conflict  he  had  to 
wage,  and,  moreover,  even  then  he  brought  them  forward 
under  varying  aspects.  Erasmus,  it  is  true,  thought  it 
fair  to  say,  not  merely  of  his  teaching  on  the  Church,  but 
of  his  teaching  in  general,  that  if  "  what  he  has  in  common 
with  Wiclif  and  Hus  be  removed,  there  would  not  be  much 
left."1  Erasmus  does  not  analyse  Luther's  assertions, 
otherwise  he  would  certainly  have  experienced  some  diffi- 
culty in  bringing  out  in  detail  his  supposed  dependence. 
We  do  not,  however,  deny  that  there  may  be  some  con- 
nection on  certain  points. 

Luther  himself  is  absolutely  silent  as  regards  having 
arrived  at  his  ideas  through  Wiclif  and  Hus.  He  evidently 
considers  himself  quite  independent.  In  his  earlier  years 
he  even  speaks  very  strongly  against  the  Bohemian  heretics 
and  the  Picards,  as  he  frequently  calls  the  Husites.  In  his 

1  "  Purgatio  adv.  epistolam  non  sobriam  Lutheri,"  1532,  p.  447,  in 
"  Erasmi  Opp."  t.  10,  Lugd.,  Batav.,  1706,  p.  1555  :  "  Si  toilets  .  .  . 
quce  illi  conveniunt  cum  I.  Hus  et  I.  Wiclevo  aliisque  nonnullis,  fortasse 
non  multum  restabit,  quo  veluti  proprio  glorietur." 


LUTHER   ON  HUS  107 

Commentary  on  the  Psalms  he  regards  them  simply  as 
heretics,1  and  in  his  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
he  once  instances  the  "  hceresis  Pighardorurn  "  as  an  example 
of  the  wilful  destruction  of  what  is  holy.2  Later,  however, 
at  and  after  his  public  apostasy,  and  even  shortly  after  the 
Leipzig  Disputation,  he  defends  some  of  Hus's  doctrines, 
and  the  result  of  his  perusal  of  Hus's  work,  "  De  ecclesia" 
was  to  make  him  more  audacious  in  upholding  the  views 
it  contains.3  This  quite  explains  the  great  sympathy  with 
which  he  afterwards  speaks  of  Hus  and  his  writings  in 
general,  and  the  passionate  way  in  which  he  blames  the 
Catholic  Church  for  having  condemned  him.  He  says  in 
1520  :  "In  many  parts  of  the  German  land  there  still 
survives  the  memory  of  John  Hus,  and,  as  it  did  not  fade, 
I  also  took  it  up,  and  discovered  that  he  was  a  worthy, 
highly  enlightened  man.  .  .  .  See,  all  ye  Papists  and 
Romanists,"  he  cries,  "  whether  you  are  able  to  undo  one 
page  of  John  Hus  with  all  your  writings."4  That  book 
of  Hus's  sermons  which  he  found  as  a  young  student  of 
theology  in  the  monastery  library  at  Erfurt  (p.  25),  he 
declares  that  he  laid  aside  because  it  was  by  an  arch- 
heretic,  though  he  had  found  much  good  in  it,  and  had  been 
horrified  that  such  a  man  had  suffered  death  as  a  heretic ; 
as  he  had  at  that  time  convinced  himself,  Hus  interpreted 
Scripture  powerfully  and  in  a  Christian  manner.5  We  also 
know  that  Luther  relates  that  Staupitz  had  told  him  of 
Proles,  his  predecessor,  how  he  disapproved  of  Johann 
Zacharuc,  one  of  the  most  capable  opponents  of  Hus,  and 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  3,  pp.  292,  334.     Cp.  W.  Kohler,  "  Luther 
und  die  Kirchengesch.,"  (1900),  p.  168  f. 
"  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  315. 

3  W.  Kohler,  ibid.,  p.  225  :    "In  his  acquaintance  with  the  sources 
Luther  hardly  rises  above  the  average.    Eck  is  superior  to  him  in  this 
point,  for  he  deals  with  the  various  sources  as  an  expert,  which  Luther 
never  was.      Emser  also   was  not  behind   Luther  .  .  .  that  Luther 
became  acquainted  with  Hus's  '  De  Ecclesia  '  at  an  earlier  period  than 
his  friends  and  adversaries  was  due  to  the  kindness  of  the  Bohemians, 
not  to  his  own  zeal  in  research.    His  friends  as  well  as  his  adversaries 
made  haste  to  catch  up  with  him  again." 

4  "Concerning  Eck's  latest  Bulls."     "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  242,  p.  28; 
Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  591.     Cp.  Luther's  "Prefaces  and  epilogues  to  some 
letters  of  Hus"  (1536  and  1537),  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  65,  p.  59  ff.,  and 
"  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  7,  p.  536  seq. 

5  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  65,  p.   81.     See  W.  Kohler,  ibid.,  p.   167  : 
"  We  may  well  ask  here  whether  the  experience  of  later  years  does 
not  come  in  as  well." 


108  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

that  Staupitz  had  agreed :  the  latter  also  held  that  "  Zach- 
ariae  had  gone  to  the  devil,  but  that  Hus  had  been  unfairly 
treated."1  This  opinion  reinforces  that  of  Grefenstein, 
mentioned  above.2  Nor  does  Luther,  when  speaking  of  his 
later  development,  ever  admit  having  read  Hus  and  other 
heretical  books,  or  being  in  any  way  indebted  to  them.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  tries  always  to  place  himself  above  Hus. 
What  Hus,  according  to  him,  discovered  was  quite  insig- 
nificant ("mwora  el  pauciora"};  he  only  commenced  bringing 
the  light  which  had  in  reality  to  come  from  him  (Luther).3 
He  only  "reproved  the  abuses  and  the  life  of  the  Pope,"  he 
says  on  a  later  occasion,  "  but  I  put  the  knife  to  his  throat, 
I  oppose  his  existence  and  his  teaching  and  make  him 
merely  equal  to  other  bishops ;  that  I  did  not  do  at  first,"4 
i.e.  I  did  not  commence  that  way.  It  is  certainly  true  that 
at  the  beginning  he  made  no  attempt  to  oppose  the  Papacy 
and  the  power  of  the  Church. 

At  any  rate,  and  this  is  what  is  most  true  in  the  above 
statements  regarding  Luther's  connection  with  Hus,  the 
feeling  against  Rome  which  Hus  had  stirred  up,  and  the 
memory  of  the  latter,  proved  of  assistance  to  Luther  when 
he  came  forward  and  brought  him  a  speedier  success ; 
he  himself  says  on  one  occasion :  "  It  is  a  tradition  among 
honest  people  that  Hus  suffered  violence  and  injustice," 
and  calls  the  belief  that  Hus  was  condemned  by  false 
judges  "  robustissima,"  so  that  no  Pope,  or  Kaiser  or 
University  can  shake  it.5 

Protestant  biographers,  as  is  well  known,  are  fond  of 
representing  the  inward  process  through  which  Luther 
went  in  the  monastery,  agreeably  with  his  own  descriptions 
in  later  years.8  Unable  to  find  peace  of  conscience  and 
assurance  of  salvation  in  the  "  works  "  of  his  monastery 
life  or  of  the  Papacy,  his  one  aim  had  been  to  arrive  at  the 
knowledge  of  a  "  merciful  God,"  and  for  this  purpose  he  had 
been  obliged  to  unearth  in  Holy  Scripture  the  long-forgotten 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  65,  p.  80  f.  ;  242,  p.  27  f.  ;  Weim.  ed.,  6, 
p.  590  f. 

"  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  591.     See  above,  p.   25. 

3  Kohler,  "  Luther  und  die  Kirchengesch.,"  p.  226,  and  "  Opp. 
Lat.  var.,"  5,  p.  216. 

«  "  Coll.,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  240  f. 

5  Cp.   Kohler,  p.    165  f.,  from   "  Werke,"   Weim.   ed.,   6,  p.    185  ; 
ibid.,  p.  223  :   "  It  is  certain  that  Luther  had  read  nothing  of  Wiclif's." 

6  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  192,  p.  152. 


ON  THE   MONASTIC   LIFE  109 

doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  Some  Protestant  writers 
dwell  not  so  much  upon  his  longing  for  certainty  of  salvation 
as  upon  his  desire  for  virtue  and  true  righteousness.  "  Oh, 
when  wilt  thou  become  pious  and  do  enough?"1  Others 
again  complete  the  picture  by  laying  stress  upon  his  recogni- 
tion of  the  concupiscence  which  is  always  reigning  in  man 
and  which  is  sin,  and  of  man's  inability  to  keep  the  com- 
mandments ;  it  was  his  recognition  of  this  which  "  produced 
Luther's  theology ;  his  whole  doctrine  of  justification 
culminated  in  the  warfare  against  sin."  All  these  de- 
scriptions arc,  however,  based  on  an  uncritical  acceptance 
of  Luther's  later  accounts  of  his  life  in  religion,  accounts 
plainly  inspired  by  his  polemic  against  the  old  Church, 
and  intended  to  illustrate  his  false  assertion  that,  in  the 
cloister  and  in  the  Papacy,  the  way  to  obtain  grace  from 
God  was  utterly  unknown. 

Here  we  will  mention  only  cursorily  some  of  Luther's  later 
statements,  purporting  to  give  a  picture  of  his  life  as  a  monk. 

To  these  belong  the  assertion  that  in  the  monastery  he  had  not 
prayed  with  faith  in  Christ,  because  "  no  one  knew  anything  " 
about  Christ  :  that  there  the  Saviour  was  known  only  as  a  strict 
Judge,  and  that  he  had  therefore  wished  there  were  no  Saviour : 
"  I  wished  there  had  been  no  God."  "  None  of  us  "  believed  at 
all  that  Christ  was  our  Saviour,  and,  by  dint  of  works,  we  "  lost 
our  baptism."  We  were  always  told  :  "  Torment  yourself  in  the 
monastery  .  .  .  whip  yourself  until  you  destroy  your  own  sin ; 
that  was  the  teaching  and  faith  of  the  Pope."2  "  It  was  a  cursed 
life,  full  of  malignity,  was  the  life  of  that  monkery."3 

The  apostate  monk's  object  in  all  those  statements  regarding 
his  interior  or  exterior  experiences  in  the  monastery  was  to  strike 
at  the  Catholic  Church. 

We  certainly  cannot  accept  as  historic  the  picture  of  religious 
practice,  or  malpractice,  given  in  the  following  :  whenever  his 
eyes  fell  upon  a  figure  of  Christ,  owing  to  his  popish  upbringing, 
he  "  would  have  preferred  to  see  the  devil  rather  than  Christ  "  ;  he 
had  thought  "  that  he  had  been  raised  to  the  company  of  angels," 
but  found  he  had  really  been  "  among  devils  "  ;  he  had  "  raged  " 
in  his  search  for  comfort  in  Holy  Scripture  ;  he  had  also  con- 
tinuously suffered  "  a  very  great  martyrdom  and  the  task- 
mastership  "  of  his  conscience.  "  Self -righteousness  "  only  had 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  192,  p.  152. 

2  Denifle  has  shown  from  a  large  number  of  passages  which  Luther 
knew,  that  the  Church  at  that  time  represented  "  God  the  Lord  always 
as  a  merciful  and  gracious  God,  not  as  the  stern  judge  "  whom  it  was 
necessary  "to  propitiate  by  works"  (Denifle,  I2,  p.  400  ff.,  pp.  420, 
421). 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  49,  p.  315. 


110  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

counted  for  anything  ;  so  great  was  it  that  he  had  been  taught 
not  to  thank  God  for  the  Sacrament,  but  that  God  should  thank 
him ;  but,  notwithstanding  all  these  errors,  he  had  always  sought 
after  a  "  merciful  God  "  and  had  at  last  found  Him  by  coming 
to  understand  His  gospel. 

The  birth  and  growth  of  this  fable  in  the  mind  of  Luther  as 
he  advanced  in  years  will  occupy  us  later.  The  present  writer 
may  point  out,  that  no  convincing  answer  has  been  given  to  the 
objections  against  the  legend  which  he  made  public  even  prior 
to  the  appearance  of  Denifle's  first  volume,1  and  which  were 
repeated  therein  independently,  and  at  considerably  greater 
length.  On  the  Protestant  side,  too,  much  more  caution  is  now 
being  observed  in  the  use  of  Luther's  later  descriptions  of  his  own 
development,  the  tendency  being  to  use  contemporary  sources 
instead.  This  is  seen,  for  instance,  in  the  studies  by  Braun  on 
Luther's  theory  of  concupiscence  and  by  Hunzinger  on  Luther's 
mysticism,  which  will  be  quoted  later. 

In  explanation  of  the  inner  process  through  which  Luther 
went,  the  primary  reason  for  his  turning  away  from  Catholic 
doctrine  has  been  attributed  by  some  Catholics  to  scrupu- 
losity combined  with  an  unhealthy  self -righteousness,  which 
by  an  inward  reaction  grew  into  carelessness  and  despair. 
How  far  this  view  is  correct,  and  how  far  it  requires  to  be 
supplemented  by  other  important  factors,  will  be  shown 
further  on. 

Meanwhile  another  altogether  too  summary  theory,  a 
theory  which  overshoots  the  mark,  must  first  be  considered. 

2.  Whether  Evil  Concupiscence  is  Irresistible  ? 

Formerly,  and  even  in  recent  times,  many  writers  on 
the  Catholic  side  have  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the 
principal  motive  for  Luther's  new  opinions  lay  in  worldli- 
ness,  sensuality,  and  more  especially  sins  of  the  flesh.  In 
order  to  explain  his  teaching  attempts  were  made  to  establish 
the  closest  connection  between  Luther's  views  with  regard 
to  the  survival  of  sin  in  man  without  his  consent,  the 
covering  over  of  man's  guilt  by  the  merits  of  Christ  and  the 
worthlessness  of  good  works  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the 
other  a  nature  ravaged  by  sinful  habits,  such  as  was  attri- 
buted to  the  originator  of  these  doctrines.  The  principal 
argument  in  favour  of  this  view  was  found  in  the  not  unusual 

1  "Literar.  Beilage"  to  the  "Koln.  Volksztg.,"  No.  44,  October  29, 
1903.  "  Luthers  Selbstzeugnisse  iiber  seine  Klosterzeit,  eine  Luther- 
legende." 


ALLEGED   MORAL  PERVERSION    111 

experience  that  intellectual  errors  frequently  arise  from 
moral  faults.  When,  however,  we  come  to  examine  Luther's 
character  more  narrowly,  we  at  once  perceive  that  other 
factors  must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  his  inward 
change,  so  that,  in  his  case,  it  is  not  easy  to  decide  how  far 
his  new  ideas  were  produced  under  the  pressure  of  his  own 
sensuality.  It  was  taken  for  granted  that,  owing  to  habitual 
moral  faults,  and  through  constant  indulgence  in  the 
concupiscence  of  the  flesh,  he  had  been  reduced  to  a  state 
of  utter  inward  degradation.  Now,  in  point  of  fact,  beyond 
what  has  been  already  quoted  nothing  can  be  found  re- 
garding his  moral  conduct  previous  to  his  change  of  view. 
No  other  circumstances  are  known  concerning  Luther  than 
those  already  mentioned  and  those  to  be  given  later. 
It  is  true  that  history  does  not  possess  the  all-seeing  eye 
of  Him  who  searches  the  heart  and  the  reins ;  the  sources 
containing  information  concerning  the  youth  of  Luther, 
before  and  after  his  profession,  are  also  very  inadequate  ; 
nevertheless,  we  must  admit  that  the  only  arguments  upon 
which  the  assertion  of  his  great  inward  corruption  could 
historically  be  based,  namely,  actual  texts  and  facts  capable 
of  convincing  anyone,  are  not  forthcoming  in  the  material 
at  our  command.1 

1  Various  passages  which  are  supposed  to  prove  Luther's  moral 
faults,  or  defects  in  his  character,  have  simply  been  passed  over  in 
the  above  as  insufficient.  Thus  what  he  says  regarding  his  state  in 
the  monastery  :  "  Even  where  it  was  only  a  question  of  a  small  tempta- 
tion of  death  or  sin,  I  fell  "  ("  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  31,  p.  279).  This 
"  fall,"  according  to  the  context,  does  not  refer  to  a  yielding  to  the 
attacks  of  evil  desires,  but  the  ostensible  melting  away  of  his  trust  in 
a  merciful  God.  It  is  quite  apparent  that  "  a  temptation  of  death  " 
cannot  be  understood  in  the  former,  but  only  in  the  latter  sense. 
Luther  once  says  that  the  doctrine  that  sin  is  expelled  all  at  once  and 
that  grace  is  infused  also  all  at  once  in  justification  drives  a  man  to 
despair,  as  his  own  experience  teaches  ;  for  it  is  clear  that  sin  dwells 
in  the  heart  together  with  good,  anger  with  mildness,  sensuality  with 
chastity  ("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  664  ;  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p. 
73  seq.)  •  but  he  refers  this  whole  explanation  not  to  actual  giving  way 
to  concupiscence,  but  simply  to  the  inevitable  continuance  of  concu- 
piscence in  the  righteous,  which  he,  it  is  true,  calls  sin.  We  may  also 
mention  here  the  text  wrongly  quoted  in  which,  as  a  proof  of  his 
haughty  bearing,  speaking  of  a  certain  theological  interpretation,  he 
says  :  "  legi  mille  auctores,"  though  he  was  then  but  a  young  man 
("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  9,  p.  62  ;  gloss  to  the  Sentences).  What  he 
really  says  is  :  "  lege  mille  auctores,"  i.e.  you  will  not  find  it  otherwise 
in  a  thousand  writers;  the  "  legi  "  is  only  a  misprint. 

The  statement  which  has  been  quoted  as  a  proof  of  the  self-deception 
which  his  pride  engendered  in  him,  viz.  that  God  had  placed  him  in  his 


112  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

If  Luther  did  actually  teach  the  fatal  invincibility  of 
concupiscence  (of  this  we  shall  have  more  to  say  later), 
yet  he  might  well  have  arrived  at  this  view  by  some  other 
way  than  that  of  constant  falls  and  the  abiding  experience 
of  his  own  weakness  and  sinfulness.  It  is  at  least  certain 
that  sad  personal  experience  is  not  the  only  thing  which 
gives  rise  to  grave  errors  of  judgment. 

Nor  does  the  manner  in  which  Luther  represents  concu- 
piscence prove  his  own  inward  corruption.  He  does  not 
make  it  to  consist  merely  in  the  concupiscence  of  the  flesh, 
and  when  he  says  that  it  is  impossible  to  conquer  concu- 
piscence he  is  not  thinking  merely  of  this.  When  he  speaks 
of  concupiscence,  and  of  a  "fames  peccati  "  in  man,  he 
usually  means  concupiscence  in  the  wide  theological  sense, 
i.e.  as  the  attraction  to  every  transgression  which  flatters 
our  imperfect  and  evil  nature,  in  particular  to  selfishness, 
as  the  centre  around  which  clusters  all  that  is  sinful- — pride, 
hatred,  sensuality,  etc. 

Luther  certainly  teaches,  even  at  the  outset,  as  we  shall 
point  out  later,  that  the  will  of  man,  by  Adam's  Fall,  has 
lost  in  our  ruined  nature  even  the  power  to  work  anything 
that  is  good  or  pleasing  to  God,  and  therefore  that  it  is 
impossible  for  man,  in  his  own  strength,  to  withstand  sin 
and  its  lusts. 

But  he  does  not  bring  forward  this  doctrine  under  cir- 
cumstances and  in  words  which  give  us  to  understand  that 
he  was  guided  by  the  intention  of  showing  any  indulgence  to 
concupiscence ;  on  the  contrary,  he  would  like  to  encourage 
everyone  to  oppose  concupiscence  by  means  of  grace  and 
faith.  Numerous  texts  might  be  quoted  which  clearly  show 
this  to  have  been  the  case. 

In  what  sense  then  does  he  allow  the  irresistibility  of 
concupiscence  ?  We  shall  find  the  answer  in  what  follows. 

office  as  one  quite  "  invincible,"  rests  on  a  similar  misprint.  Instead 
of  "  invictifisimum,"  as  in  Enders  ("  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  21),  we  should 
read  "  inmtissimum,"  according  to  W.  Walther's  correct  rendering, 
and  the  idea  is  one  which  often  recurs  in  Luther,  viz.  that  God  had 
called  him  to  the  office  in  spite  of  his  disinclination.  Nor  can  his  want 
of  the  spirit  of  prayer  be  proved  by  his  statement  that  he  often  followed 
the  office  with  so  much  distraction  that  "  the  Psalm  or  the  Hour 
(Hore)  was  ended  before  I  noticed  whether  I  was  at  the  beginning  or 
in  the  middle"  ("  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  23,  p.  22).  If  he  were  speaking 
of  voluntary  inattention,  that  would  be  something  different,  but  the 
imagination  of  one  so  much  occupied  as  he  was  might  well  be  greatly 
distracted  quite  unintentionally. 


ON   CONCUPISCENCE  113 

He  frequently  expresses  the  truth,  taught  by  faith  and 
experienee  alike,  regarding  the  continuance  of  concupiscence 
in  man,  even  in  the  most  perfect,  and  he  does  so  in  terms 
so  strong  that  he  seems  to  make  concupiscence  invincible. 
We  can  also  see  that  he  has  a  lively  sense  of  the  burden  of 
concupiscence,  that  he  cherishes  a  certain  gloomy  distrust 
of  God's  readiness  to  come  to  man's  assistance  —a  distrust 
connected  with  his  temptations  on  predestination —and 
that  he  undervalues  the  helps  which  the  Church  offers 
against  evil  desires.  Finally,  he  sees  in  the  very  existence 
of  concupiscence  a  culpable  offence  against  the  Almighty, 
and  declares  that,  without  grace,  man  is  an  unhappy 
prisoner,  who  in  consequence  of  original  sin  is  in  the  fullest 
sense  incapable  of  doing  what  is  good. 

In  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  (1512-15-16)  he  still, 
it  is  true,  upholds  the  natural  freedom  of  man  as  opposed 
to  his  passions.  In  the  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  (1515-16),  and  frequently  in  the  sermons  of  that 
period,  he  indeed  sacrifices  this  freedom,  but  even  there  he 
insists  that  the  grace  of  God  will  in  the  end  secure  the  victory 
to  those  who  seek  aid  and  pray  humbly,  and  he  also  instances 
some  of  the  means  which,  with  the  efficacious  assistance 
of  God,  may  help  to  victory  in  the  religious  life.  To  this 
later  standpoint  of  the  possibility  of  resistance  with  the 
assistance  of  grace  he  adhered  to  his  end.  Exhortations 
to  struggle  not  only  against  actual  sins,  but  also  against 
the  smouldering  fire  of  concupiscence — which  must  be  ex- 
tinguished more  and  more  in  the  righteous  until  at  length 
death  sets  him  free — occupy  many  pages  of  his  writings. 
The  jarring  notes  present  in  the  above  teaching  do  not  seem 
to  have  troubled  him  at  any  time  ;  he  seeks  to  conceal  them 
and  to  pass  them  over.  Never  once  does  he  enter  upon  a 
real  theological  discussion  of  the  most  difficult  point  of  all, 
the  relation  of  grace  to  free  will. 

Luther  also  speaks  of  our  freedom  and  our  responsibility  for 
our  personal  salvation  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  :  "  My 
soul  is  in  my  own  keeping  ;  by  the  freedom  of  my  will  I  can 
make  it  eternally  happy  or  eternally  unhappy  by  choosing  or 
rejecting  Thy  law."  Therefore  Psalm  cxviii.  109  says,  "  My 
soul  is  always  in  my  hands,"  and  although  I  am  free  to  do  either, 
yet  I  have  not  "  forgotten  Thy  law."1  He  defends  the  principle 

1  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  295.     Cp.  ibid.,  9,  p.   112,  Luther's 
marginal  note  on  Anselm's  "  Opuacula,"  which  has  the  same  meaning 
Denifle- Weiss,  I2,  p.  507,  n.  3. 
]. — I 


114  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

of  the  theologians,  that  God  does  not  refuse  His  grace  to  him 
who  does  his  best  ("  facienti  quod  est  in  se,  Deus  non  denegat 
yratiam").1  He  teaches  also  that  it  is  possible  to  prepare  for 
grace  which  is  always  at  hand. z 

"  Whoever  keeps  the  law,"  he  writes  in  the  lectures  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  at  a  time  when  he  had  already  denied  the 
freedom  of  the  will  for  good,  "is  in  Christ,  and  grace  is  given  him 
according  as  he  has  prepared  himself  for  it  to  the  best  of  his 
power."3  Without  grace  man  is,  it  is  true,  unable  to  do  any- 
thing that  is  good  in  God's  sight,  but  "  the  law  of  nature  is  known 
to  everyone,  and  therefore  no  one  is  excusable  "  who  does  not 
follow  it  and  fight  against  evil.  *  Grace,  according  to  him,  sets  the 
enslaved  will  in  the  righteous  free  again  to  work  for  his  salvation. 
"  After  he  has  received  grace,  he  has  been  set  free,  at  least  to 
work  for  his  eternal  salvation."5  This  remarkable  passage 
together  with  its  continuation  will  be  considered  later  when  we 
deal  more  fully  with  the  Commentary  on  Romans.  We  may 
also  draw  attention  to  the  fact,  that  in  his  Notes  on  Tauler's 
sermons,  written  about  the  same  time  as  the  Commentary,  quite 
against  the  supposed  utter  inability  of  the  will  for  good,  he 
acknowledges  the  natural  inclination  in  man  towards  good— the 
so-called  Syntheresis,  or  moral  good  conscience.8 

In  his  lectures  on  Romans  he  insists  that,  "  by  means  of  works 
of  penance  and  the  cross,"  concupiscence  must  be  fought  against 
without  intermission,  forced  back  and  diminished  ;  "  the  body 
of  sin  "  must,  according  to  the  Apostle,  be  destroyed.7  Luther 
must  therefore  certainly  have  regarded  man  as  capable  of  resist- 
ing his  evil  passions,  at  any  rate  with  assistance  from  above. 

Of  his  later  statements  it  will  suffice  to  mention  the  following  : 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.   262  :    "  Recte  dicunt  Doctores,  quod 
homini  facienti  quod  in  se  est  infallibiliter  dat  gratiam  et  licet  non  de 
condigno   sese   possit   ad   gratiam   prceparare,    quia   est   incomparabilis 
(correct  view  of  the  supernatural)  tamen  bene  de  congruo  propter  pro- 
missionem  istam  Dei  et  pactum  misericordice."     The  best  Scholastics, 
however,    rightly    questioned    the    "  de    congruo."      The    proposition 
"  Facienti,"  etc.,  with  "  infallibiliter  dat  "  instead  of  the  usual  "  non 
denegat  "  is  nominalistic  (Denifle,  I1,  p.  556  f.  ;    cp.  pp.  407,  415). 

2  Besides  the  former  passage,  see  for  ilcongrue  se  disponere,"  Weim. 
ed.,  4,  p.  329.    Though  Luther  emphasises  at  the  same  time  the  gratis 
ease  of  grace,  yet  Loofa  ("Dogmengesch.,"  4,  p.  700)  is  not  altogether 
wrong,  having  regard  for  Luther's  nominalistic  views,  in  saying :   "we 
must  at  least  consider  his  opinion  at  that  time  as  crypto-semi- Pelagian." 
He  is  rightly  indignant  with  Kostlin  ("  Luthers  Theologie,"  2  p.  67  f.) 
for  having  "  attempted  to  conform  these  passages  with  Luther's  later 
views." 

3  Fol.    100.      Denifle,    I1,   p.   414,   n.   5;     "  Schol.   Rom.,"   p.   38: 
"  per  sui  prceparationem  ad  eandem,  quantum  in  se  est." 

4  Fol.  100.     Denifle,  I1,  p.  414,  n.  4  ;    "  Rom.  Schol.,"  p.  37. 

5  Fol.  212.     Denifle-Weiss,  1,  p.  508,  n.  2  ;    "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  212  : 
"  habita  autem  gratia,   (arbitrium)  proprie  factum  est  liberum,   saltern 
respectu  salutis." 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  9,  p.  103  ;    Loofs,  p.  708. 
7  Cp.  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  107. 


ON   CONCUPISCENCE  115 

"  If  I  will  not  leave  sin  and  become  pious,"  he  says  of  the  struggle 
against  evil,  "I  may  indeed  strive  to  become  the  master,  and 
God's  property,  and  to  be  free,  but  nothing  will  come  of  it."1 
Or  again  :  "  As  long  as  we  live  here,  evil  desires  and  passions 
remain  in  us  which  draw  us  to  sin,  against  which  we  must  strive 
and  fight,  as  St.  Peter  says  (1  Peter  ii.  11  f.).  We  must  therefore 
always  exercise  ourselves  and  pray  always  and  fight  against  sin 
...  as  often  as  you  feel  yourself  tempted  to  impatience,  pride, 
unchastity  or  other  sins  .  .  .  you  must  forthwith  think  how 
best  to  withstand  these  arrows,  and  beg  the  Lord  Jesus  that  your 
sin  may  not  gain  the  upper  hand  and  overcome  you,  but  that  it 
may  be  conquered  by  His  grace." 2  "  Do  you  wish  to  keep  all  the 
commandments,"  he  says  later,  "to  be  free  from  your  evil 
desires  and  from  sin,  as  the  commandments  require  and  demand, 
then  see  you  believe  in  Christ."3 

Further,  if  we  consider  those  passages  in  Luther's  earlier 
writings  alleged  as  proofs  of  his  belief  in  the  irresistibility  of  con- 
cupiscence, we  find  that  in  every  case  they  merely  emphasise  the 
inevitable  continuance  of  concupiscence  in  man,  without  in  any 
way  implying  the  necessity  of  our  acquiescing  in  the  same,  and 
without  excluding  grace.  In  the  Heidelberg  Disputation  of  1518 
he  says  for  instance,  "  Why  do  we  hold  concupiscence  to  be 
irresistible  ?  Well,  try  and  do  something  without  the  interference 
of  concupiscence.  Naturally  you  cannot.  So  then  your  nature 
is  incapable  of  fulfilling  the  law."  *  Elsewhere  also  Luther  lays 
much  stress  upon  the  indestructibility  and  the  impossibility  of 
rooting  out  of  man  the  smouldering  fire  of  evil,  the  "fomes 
peccati,"  though  he  is  wrong  in  making  this  condition  equivalent 
to  a  culpable  non-fulfilling  of  the  law  by  man  ;  he  is  mistaken 
not  only  in  his  common  statement  that  man's  evil  inclination, 
even  though  involuntary,  is  sinful  in  God's  sight,  that  it  is  in 
fact  original  sin,  and  that  it  would  carry  man  to  damnation  were 
God  not  to  impute  to  him  Christ's  righteousness  ;  he  also  errs 
by  unduly  magnifying  the  power  of  concupiscence,  as  though 
the  practice  of  virtue,  prayer  and  the  reception  of  the  Sacraments 
did  not  weaken  it  much  more  than  he  is  willing  to  admit. 

In  1515  he  declares  that  evil  concupiscence  or  sin  "  cannot 
be  removed  from  us  by  any  counsel  or  work,"  and  that  "we  all 
recognise  it  to  be  quite  invincible  ( "  invincibilem  esse  concupis- 
centiam  penitus  ");5  invincible,  i.e.  in  the  sense  of  ineradicable, 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  48,  p.  388. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  15,  p.  53  f. 

3  Ibid.,  27,  p.  180  f.  ;   Weim.  ed.,  7,  p.  24,  Von  der  Freiheit  eines 
Christenmenschen,   1520. 

4  "  Werke."  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  374.    See  below,  chapter  viii.  3. 

6  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  35  ;  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  64  : 
"  Si  cognoscatur,  quod  nullis  consiliis,  nullis  auxiliis  nostris  concupi- 
scentia  ex  nobis  possit  auferri,  et  hcec  contra  legem  est,  quce  dicit  '  Non 
concupisces '  et  experimur  omnes  invincibilem  esse  concupiscentiam 
penitus,  quid  restat,  nisi  ut  sapientia  carnis  cesset  et  cedat,  desperet  in 
semetipsa,  pereat  et  humiliata  aliunde  qucerat  auxilium,  quod  sibi 
prceatare  ntquit  ? 


116  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

for  which  reason,  as  he  again  repeats  here,  it  must  at  least  be 
rendered  innocuous  by  humble  prayer  for  God's  help.  In  spite  of 
the  strong  expression  "  invincibilis,"  and  in  spite  of  the  com- 
parison he  makes  elsewhere  between  the  evil  inclination  and 
Cerberus  or  Antteus,  l  he  does  not  go  further  here  than  in  another 
assertion  in  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  which  has  also  been 
urged  against  him  :  "  the  passion  of  anger,  pride,  sensuality, 
when  it  is  aroused,  is  strong,  yea  invincible  ('t'mmo  invincibilis'), 
as  experience  teaches,"  i.e.  it  appears  so  to  the  person  attacked 
by  it.  He  had  just  remarked  that  in  such  a  case  we  must  hope  in 
God  and  despair  of  ourselves.  He  describes  in  the  strongest 
terms,  in  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  the  strength  of  con- 
cupiscence in  habitual  sinners  who  are  not  accustomed  to  turn  to 
God's  grace  :  "  the  sinner  who  is  oppressed  by  vice,  and  feels  the 
devil  and  his  body  of  sin  forcing  him  to  evil,  allows  the  inner 
voice  to  speak  constantly  against  sin,  and  severely  blames  himself 
in  his  conscience  .  .  .  reason  and  the  moral  sense,  remnants  left 
over  from  the  ruin  of  original  sin,  awaken  in  him  and  cry  without 
ceasing  to  the  Lord,  even  though  the  will  sins,  forced  thereto  by 
sin."2  We  repeat,  that  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  he  does 
not  yet  actually  deny  natural  freedom  in  the  doing  of  what  is 
good. 

The  view  that  man,  without  God's  grace,  is  entirely 
lacking  in  freedom  with  regard  to  his  passions — a  view 
which,  it  is  true,  permeates  Luther's  Commentary  on 
Romans' — was  not  the  starting-point  of  Luther's  theological 
development.  It  was  the  end  of  the  first  stage  through 
which  he  had  passed.  This  doctrine  reached  later  on  its 
culminating  point  in  his  book,  "  De  servo  arbitrio,"  against 
Erasmus.  Here,  at  the  head  of  his  proofs,  he  openly 
confesses  himself  a  determinist,  admitting  that  God  has 
decreed  beforehand  all  man's  actions  ;  any  such  deter- 
minism is,  however,  wanting  in  his  earlier  life,  nor  is  it  to 
be  found  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans ;  Luther  does  not 
yet  show  himself  to  be  led  by  determinist  ideas.  Even 
in  his  work  against  Erasmus  there  are  no  forcible  grounds 
for  attributing  the  origin  of  his  new  teaching  to  his  inward 
corruption.  Therein  he  merely  denies  the  freedom  of  the 
will  for  good  without  grace,  though  he  allows  it  to  be  free 
in  indifferent  matters,  a  somewhat  inconsistent  theory 
owing  to  the  difficulty  of  determining  exactly  the  limita- 
tions of  these  indifferent  things. 

Neither  the   Commentary   on   the   Psalms   nor  that  on 

1  In  Comm.  on  Epistle  to  the  Rom.,  fol.  167 ;   quoted  by  Denifle- 
Weiss,  P,  p.  476,  n.  2  ;    "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  144  f. 

2  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  207;  3,  p.  535. 


Romans  gives  us  the  impression  of  being  the  work  of  an 
immoral  man,  a  fact  which  should  also  carry  some  weight. 
An  author  who  at  the  first  assault  had  capitulated  to  his 
evil  desires  would  hardly  have  been  able  to  conceal  his  low 
moral  standard  ;  he  would  rather  have  been  tempted  to 
join  the  Epicureans  or  the  Sceptics,  or  the  unbelieving 
ranks  of  the  Humanists.  Of  anything  of  the  kind  there  is  no 
traee  in  the  books  last  mentioned. 

Their  characteristic  is  rather — there  is  no  harm  in  men- 
tioning it  now- — a  certain  false  spiritualism,  a  mysticism, - 
which,  especially  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  frequently  follows  quite  devious  paths.  In 
consequence  of  his  unceasing  opposition  to  self-righteous- 
ness, of  his  poor  idea  of  God  and  of  human  strength,  and 
of  his  false  mystical  train  of  thought,  Luther  came  to  dismiss 
human  freedom  and  to  set  up  the  power  of  sin  on  the  throne. 
Aristotle's  teaching  regarding  the  natural  righteousness 
which  arises  from  good  actions  is  particularly  distasteful 
to  Luther,  and  equally  distasteful  to  the  nominalistic 
critic  is  the  doctrine  of  supernatural  righteousness  through 
infused  sanctifying  grace,  which  he  prefers  to  replace  by 
the  imputation  of  the  merits  of  Christ. 

3.  The  Real  Starting-point  and  the  Co-operating  Factors 

The  real  origin  of  Luther's  teaching  must  be  sought  in 
a  fundamental  principle  which  governed  him,  which  was 
fostered  by  the  decline  in  his  life  as  a  religious  and  a  priest, 
and  more  particularly  by  his  inordinate  love  of  his  own 
opinion  and  by  the  uncharitable  criticisms  he  passed  upon 
others.  This  was  his  unfavourable  estimate  of  good  works, 
and  of  any  effort,  natural  or  supernatural,  on  the  part  of 
man. 

This  opposition  to  a  principle,  common  to  the  Church 
and  to  monasticism,  as  to  the  necessity  in  which  men 
generally  and  religious  in  particular  stand  of  performing 
good  works  if  they  wish  to  please  God,  is  the  first  deviation 
from  the  right  path  which  we  notice  in  him.  He  called  it 
a  fight  against  "  holiness  by  works  "  and  self -righteousness, 
and  in  this  fight  he  went  still  further.  He  made  his  own 
the  deadly  error  that  man  by  his  natural  powers  is  unable 
to  do  anything  but  sin.  To  this  he  added  that  the  man  who, 


118  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

by  God's  grace,  is  raised  to  justification  through  divinely 
infused  faith  and  trust  must,  it  is  true,  perform  good  works, 
but  that  the  latter  are  not  to  be  accounted  meritorious. 
All  works  avail  nothing  as  means  for  arriving  at  righteous- 
ness and  eternal  salvation  ;  faith  alone  effects  both.  Not 
at  the  outset,  but  gradually,  did  he  make  his  antagonism  to 
good  works  the  foundation  of  a  doctrine  built  up  under  the 
influence  of  a  lively  imagination,  a  powerful  and  undisci- 
plined self-confidence  and  other  factors  which  will  be 
mentioned  below.  In  his  controversy  with  the  "  holy  by 
works  "  he  had  exclaimed  (p.  81)  "  there  is  no  greater 
pest  in  the  Church  to-day  than  those  men  who  go  about 
saying  '  we  must  do  good  works.' '  His  real  enemies  were 
soon  the  traditional  Catholic  belief  and  practice  regarding 
good  works  and  personal  activity  in  general ;  he  did  not 
confine  himself  to  expressing  his  dissatisfaction  with  the 
Observantines  in  his  own  Order  or  the  possible  excesses  of 
other  supporters  of  outward  works. 

It  is  easy  to  recognise  how  this  opposition  to  works  runs 
like  a  dark  thread  through  the  first  beginnings  of  his  teaching 
of  the  new  doctrine  and  onward  through  the  whole  course 
of  his  life.  We  may  here,  starting  at  the  commencement, 
anticipate  his  history  somewhat. 

"  At  the  first,"  so  he  says  himself  in  later  years,  "  my 
struggle  was  against  trust  in  works,"1  and  this  is  confirmed 
by  the  MS.  Commentary  on  Romans  which  he  commenced 
in  1515  (see  below,  chap.  vi.  3).  The  first  occasion  in  his 
correspondence  in  which  he  allows  his  new  views  to  appear 
is  in  1516,  in  a  recommendation  to  a  friend  that  "  he  should 
cultivate  disgust  with  his  own  righteousness  and  despair 
of  himself,"  that  this  was  better  than  to  do  as  "  those  who 
plague  themselves  with  their  works  until  they  think  they 
are  fit  to  stand  in  God's  sight."2  He  expresses  himself  in 
a  similar  strain  on  self-righteousness  in  sermons  preached 
at  this  time.3 

The  same  line  of  thought  also  appears  in  a  paradoxical  form, 
as  the  basis  of  a  disputation  held  at  Wittenberg  in  1516  under 
his  presidency.  Man  sins,  so  we  find  it  said,  "  when  he  does  what 

1  Werke,  Erl.  ed.,  58,  p.  382  ;   Table-Talk. 

2  To  George  Spenlein,  April  8,    1516,   "  Briefwechsel,"    1,  p.   29  : 
"  anima    tua,    pertcesa   propriam   iustitiam,    discat   in   iustitia   Christi 
respirare  atque  confidere,"  etc.  ;    see  above,  p.  89. 

3  See  above,  p.  83. 


WORKS   A   SOURCE   OF   PRIDE     119 

is  in  him"  ("quod  est  in  se"),  and  those  who  are  "righteous  in 
their  own  eyes  "  by  reason  of  their  good  works,  i.e.  all  who  do 
not  simply  "  despair  of  themselves,"  are  condemned.  This 
ruling  thought  also  pervades  another  disputation  of  one  of  his 
pupils  in  1517,  where  we  read  :  "  every  good  work  must  needs  at 
once  make  nature  proud  and  puffed  up,"  and  "  hope  is  not  given 
us  by  our  merits,  but  by  suffering  [painful  interior  struggles], 
which  root  out  merit,"  *  i.e.  which  destroy  every  feeling  of  self- 
satisfaction  grounded  on  merit.  He  tells  one  of  his  confidants  in 
the  same  year  that  his  great  aim  was  "  to  grant  nothing  to  human 
works,  but  to  know  only  God's  grace."2 

In  his  first  German  work,  printed  in  1517,  the  Commentary  on 
the  Seven  Penitential  Psalms,  he  opposes  "  all  proud  living 
and  work  and  righteousness  "  and  bewails  the  "  spiritual  pride, 
the  last  and  deepest  of  all  vices,"3  with  which,  according  to  him, 
those  are  filled  who  seek  for  "  safety  and  false  consolation  "  in 
their  works  instead  of  simply  embracing  the  "  word  of  grace." 
He  places  works  so  much  in  the  background  in  his  teaching  at 
that  time,  that  he  brings  forward  this  objection  against  himself, 
whether,  instead  of  always  speaking  of  grace,  he  should  not  speak 
more  of  "  human  righteousness,  wisdom  and  strength."  Instead 
of  defending  himself  he  declares  "  a  good  life  does  not  consist  in 
many  works";  to  feel  oneself  "a  miserable,  damned,  forsaken 
sinner  "  is  better,  even  when  God  sends  trouble  of  soul,  which  is 
"  a  drop  or  foretaste  of  the  pains  of  hell,"  and  which  renders  the 
human  corpse  quite  ill  and  weak;  such  suffering  makes  a  man 
like  Christ  who  also  bore  the  same.4 

When  in  1518  he  published  his  Latin  sermon  on  Penance,  its 
chief  thesis  was  that  man's  part  in  his  reconciliation  with  God 
counted  for  nought ;  we  must  despair  in  order  to  attain  con- 
trition, at  least  from  the  motive  of  fear  of  God  ;  we  must  merely 
submit  with  faith  to  the  action  of  grace.  "  Whoever  trusts  to 
his  contrition  when  receiving  absolution,  builds  on  the  sand  of 
his  works  and  is  guilty  of  shameless  presumption."6 

He  writes  in  the  same  year  that  blinded  adversaries  accuse 
him  of  condemning  good  works,  more  especially  that  he  dared  to 
declare  war  against  rosaries,  the  Little  Office,  and  other  prayers, 
and  yet  the  sum  of  his  sermon  was  only  this  :  "  that  we  must  not 
place  our  confidence  in  our  own  work."6 

Thus  the  depreciation  of  works  is  the  prevailing  note,  even  in 
his  first  public  utterances  ;  this  it  also  remains. 

When  he  began  his  attack  on  religious  vows,  he  supported  his 

1  "  Disputation  of  Bartholomew  Bernhardi  "  ;  "  Werke,"  Weim. 
ed.,  p.  145  ft. 

"  Disputation  of  Franz  Giinther  "  ;    ibid.,  p.  224  ff.,  Nos.  37,  25. 

3  To    Johann    Lang,    March    1,    1517,   "  Briefwechsel,"    1,   p.   88. 
He  will  not  be  one  :    "  qui  arbitrio  hominis  nonnihil  tribuit." 

4  The     Seven     Penitential    Psalms ;      "  Werke,"     Weim.     ed.,     1, 
p.  158  ff.,  especially  pp.  160,  201,  211,  213,  219.    For  "pains  of  hell" 
cp.  ibid.,  p.  557. 

5  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  pp.  319-24. 

6  To  Staupitz,  March  31,  1518,  "  Briefwechsel,"  p.  175  f. 


120  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

campaign  by  preference  on  the  ostensible  worthlessness  of  human 
works  for  obtaining  merit  in  heaven  ;  .  vows  were  to  be  rejected 
because  the  heart  must  not  seek  its  stay  in  works,1  arid  in  his 
attacks  on  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  and  religious,  he  again 
declared  that  he  was  attacking  the  "  false  saints  "  who  intrench 
themselves  behind  the  holiness  of  the  works  accomplished  by 
them  in  a  state  superior  to  that  of  family  life,  but  that  faith 
makes  all  outward  things  free.2  This  prejudice  against  works 
is  the  principal  feature  in  his  polemics ;  for  instance,  he  explains 
to  King  Henry  VIII  in  a  rejoinder  directed  against  him  that 
the  enemy  he  was  called  upon  to  overcome  was  the  pestilential 
doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  appearing  before  God  with  works 
("  velle  per  opera  coram  Deo  agere),  whereas  works  were  good  only 
in  the  eyes  of  man. 3  In  season  and  out  of  season,  he  pours  forth 
his  rage  against  the  works  in  the  Papacy  with  such  words  as  these  : 
Away  with  masses,  pilgrimages,  Office  in  Choir,  saint-worship, 
cowls,  virginity,  confraternities,  rules,  and  such-like,  away  with 
"  the  lousy  works  "  ;*  and  so  he  preached  to  his  very  end  in  1546. 5 

It  is  not,  however,  sufficient  to  take  as  Luther's  starting- 
point  his  opposition  to  good  works,  though  this  always 
remains  the  chief  feature  in  his  doctrine.  Further  fresh 
light  may  be  thrown  on  the  enigmatical  process  of  his  inner 
change  if  we  consider  various  influences  which  contributed 
to  lead  him  to  his  new  doctrine  and  to  develop  the  same. 

A  preliminary  glance  at  the  case  shows  us,  first  of  all, 
that  Luther  in  his  youth  was  trained  in  the  theological 
school  of  Occam,  i.e.  in  a  form  of  theology  showing  great 
signs  of  decadence.  The  nominalistic,  and  more  particularly 
the  false  anthropological  speculations  of  Occam,  d'Ailly 
and  Biel,  which  did  not  allow  its  full  rights  to  grace,  called 
forth  his  opposition,  and  he  soon  lost  all  confidence  in  the 
old  theology  ;  in  his  exaggeration  he  Avent  to  the  theological 
extreme  contrary  to  Occamism  and  declared  war  against 
the  ability  of  nature  to  do  good.  This  was  a  negative  effect 
of  Occamism.  This  view  encouraged  him  in  his  opposition 
to  the  "  self-righteousness  "  which  he  fancied  he  saw  every- 

1  "  Werke,"    Erl.    ed.,    53,   p.   288    (1525)  ;     Kostlin-Kawerau,   1, 
p.  465  ff. 

2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  552  ff. 

3  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  6,  p.  396  ;    Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  87  (an.  1522)  : 
"  opera  quibus  erga  homines  utendum  est,  offerunt  Deo,"  etc. 

*  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  152,  p.  282  :  "  They  praise  their  works," 
"  the  lousy  works."  Cp.  ibid.,  222,  pp.  52,  381. 

5  At  Halle.  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  16,  p.  221  ff.,  against  the  "  lousy 
monks  "  and  their  "  holiness  by  works."  Cp.  generally  the  four  last 
sermons  at  Eisleben,  ibid.,  pp.  209,  230,  245,  264. 


where,  even  in  the  zeal  of  the  Observantines  for  their  rule, 
especially  when  he  had  already  fallen  away  from  the  ideals 
of  his  profession,  from  monastic  piety  and  the  spirit  of  the 
priesthood.  A  boundless  self-reliance  began  to  possess  him, 
and  led  him  forward  regardless  of  all.  This  was  the  "  wisdom 
of  his  own  mind  "  of  which  he  accuses  himself  in  1516  in  a 
letter  to  a  friend  in  the  Order,  speaking  of  it  as  the  "  founda- 
tion and  root  "  of  much  unrest ;  bitterly  he  exclaims  : 
"  Oh,  how  much  pain  has  the  evil  eye  [this  self-conceit] 
already  caused  me,  and  how  much  does  it  continue  to 
plague  me."1  We  may  take  these  words  more  seriously 
than  they  were  probably  meant.  His  egotism  and  pride 
were  flattered  to  such  an  extent  by  his  imagination  that  he 
seemed  to  find  everywhere  confirmation  of  his  own  pre- 
conceived notions.  Having  read  Tauler  he  at  once  con- 
sidered him  as  the  greatest  of  writers,  because  he  was  able 
to  credit  him  with  some  of  his  own  sentiments.  Then  again 
in  Augustine,  the  Doctor  of  the  Church,  he  found,  as  he 
imagined,  a  true  reflection  of  his  new  doctrine.  Devoid  of 
the  necessary  intellectual  and  moral  discipline,  he  allowed 
himself  to  be  blinded  by  a  fanatic  attachment  to  his  own 
opinion. 

Carried  away  by  his  own  judgment  and  regardless  of  the 
teaching  of  all  the  schools,  yea,  even  of  the  Church  herself, 
he  passed  into  the  camp  of  the  enemy,  perhaps  without  at 
first  being  aware  of  it ;  he  came  to  deny  entirely  the  merit 
of  good  works  as  though  they  were  of  no  importance  for  our 
salvation  as  compared  with  the  power  of  faith,  an  idea  in 
which  he  fortified  himself  by  his  one-sided  study  of  Holy 
Scripture  and  by  his  misinterpretation  of  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul,  that  preacher  of  the  power  of  faith  and  of  the 
grace  of  Christ.  He  was  always  accustomed  to  consider 
the  Bible  as  his  special  province,  and,  given  his  character, 
it  was  not  difficult  for  him  to  identify  himself  with  it,  and 
to  ascribe  to  himself  the  discovery  of  great  Scriptural 
truths  till  then  misunderstood  or  forgotten;  for  instance, 
the  destruction  of  man's  powers  by  original  sin  and  their 
renewal  by  faith  and  grace.  The  false  doctrine  of  the 
outward  imputation  of  the  merits  of  Christ  came  next. 
The  school  of  Occam  here  prepared  the  way  for  him  by  its 
views  on  sanctifying  grace  and  "  acceptation  "  (imputa- 
1  To  George  Leiffer,  April  15,  1516,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  31. 


122  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

tion).  Luther  found  in  Occam's  views  on  this  subject  no 
obstacle,  but  rather  a  support.  This  positive  influence  on 
him  of  Occam  will  be  dealt  with  below  (chap.  iv.  3),  together 
with  other  positive  effects  which  decadent  Scholasticism 
exercised  upon  him.  Just  as  it  suited  his  violent  character 
to  declare  in  no  gentle  words  the  renunciation  of  personal 
merit  of  every  kind  for  the  imputation  of  the  merits  of 
Christ,  so  the  tendency  of  his  own  religious  life,  which  had 
become  alienated  from  the  ideals  of  his  Order,  encouraged 
him  to  make  the  whole  Amoral  task  consist  in  a  simple, 
trustful  appropriation  of  the  saving  merits  of  Christ,  in 
confidence,  comfort  and  safety,  notwithstanding  the  dis- 
sentient inner  voices. 

Further,  his  study  of  false  mysticism  (see  below,  chap,  v.) 
helped  to  clothe  his  new  ideas  in  the  deceptive  dress  of 
piety.  To  himself  he  seemed  to  be  fulfilling  perfectly  the 
precepts  of  the  mystics  to  seek  everywhere  the  spirit  and 
make  small  account  of  outward  things  :  he  imagined  that 
Christ  would  be  truly  honoured,  and  the  importance  of 
Divine  grace  effectually  made  manifest,  by  despair  of  our 
own  works,  yea,  even  of  ourself.  The  power  which  a 
mysticism  gone  astray  exercised  in  those  early  stages  upon 
a  mind  so  full  of  imagination  and  feeling  cannot  be  over- 
estimated. 

The  oldest  letter  we  have  of  Luther  to  Staupitz  is  in  itself 
a  witness  to  its  writer's  self-deception  ;  to  his  fatherly 
friend  he  speaks  quite  openly  and  even  appeals  to  his 
sermons  "  on  the  Love  of  God  "  in  support  of  his  own 
errors.  Staupitz  had  warned  him  in  a  friendly  manner 
that  in  many  places  his  name  stood  in  very  bad  repute. 
Luther  admits  in  this  letter,  written  four  months  after  he 
had  affixed  the  well-known  Wittenberg  Theses,  that  his 
doctrine  of  justification,  his  sermons  on  the  worthlessness 
of  works,  and  his  opposition  to  the  theology  in  vogue  in 
the  schools  had  raised  a  storm  against  him.  People  said 
that  he  rejected  pious  practices  and  all  good  works.  And 
yet  he  was  merely  a  disciple  of  Tauler's  theology,  and,  like 
Staupitz,  had  taught  nothing  else  but  that  "  we  should 
place  our  confidence  in  none  other  than  Jesus  Christ,  not 
in  any  prayers  and  merits  and  good  works,  because  we  are 
saved  not  by  our  works,  but  by  God's  mercy."  If  God 
were  working  in  him,  so  he  concludes  enthusiastically,  then 


PRIDE   PRECEDES   THE   FALL      123 

no  one  can  turn  him  aside  ;  but  if  it  was  not  God's  work, 
then,  indeed,  no  one  can  advance  his  cause.1 

We  must  assume  that  at  the  beginning  of  his  alienation 
from  the  Church  among  other  motives  he  was  largely 
deceived  by  the  appearance  of  good  ;  there  is,  in  any  case, 
nothing  decisive  to  show  the  process  as  purely  material,  as 
a  result  of  his  efforts  to  relieve  himself  from  his  moral 
obligations,  or  as  due  to  a  worldly  spirit.  His  responsibility, 
of  course,  became  much  greater  when,  as  he  advanced  and 
was  able  to  review  things  more  calmly,  he  obstinately 
adhered  to  his  new  views,  and,  as  his  sermons  and  writings 
prove,  defended  them,  even  against  the  best-meant  criticism, 
with  bitterness,  hate  and  passion.  Self-love,  which,  even 
in  his  earlier  life,  had  held  too  great  a  place,  now  took 
complete  control  of  him,  and  the  spirit  of  contradiction 
closed  the  gates  for  ever  against  his  return.  Luther's 
character  was  one  which  contradiction  only  served  to 
stimulate  and  to  drive  to  extremes. 

Thus  his  spiritual  pride  was  his  real  misfortune.2 

In  his  case  we  find  a  sad  confirmation  of  what  is  fre- 
quently observed  in  the  falling  away  from  truth  of  highly 
gifted  minds  ;  self-esteem  and  self-conceit  suggest  the  first 
thoughts  of  a  turning  away  from  the  truth,  hitherto  held 
in  honour,  and  then,  with  fatal  strength,  condemns  the 
\vanderer  to  keep  to  the  path  he  has  chosen.  Further 
concessions  to  the  spirit  of  the  world  then  follow  as  a  conse- 
quence of  the  apostate's  continued  enmity  to  the  Church. 
Of  the  last  moral  decline  so  noticeable  in  Luther's  later  life 
there  is  also  no  lack  of  similar  instances,  for  it  is  the  rule 
that  after  a  man  has  been  led  astray  by  pride  there  should 
follow  further  moral  deviations  from  the  right  path.  The 
Monk's  subsequent  breach  of  his  vows  and  his  marriage 
with  a  former  nun  was  a  sacrilege,  which  to  Catholic 
eyes  showed  plainly  how  he  who  begins  in  the  spirit  of 
pride,  even  though  his  purposes  be  good,  may  end  in  the 
flesh. 

At  the  earliest  inception  of  Luther's  theological  errors 
other  elements  may  however  be  perceived  which  help  to 

1  March  31,  1518,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  1,  p.  175. 

2  "  Pride   brought  him   to   fall   and   to   despair  of  himself,   pride 
prevented  his  rising  again  and  made  him  despair  of  God's  grace  which 
assists  us  to  keep  God's  law  which  our  concupiscence  resists."     So 
Denifle- Weiss,  I2,  p.  403. 


124  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

explain  more  easily  his  growing  antipathy  to  so-called 
holiness  by  works.  First,  there  was  the  real  abuse  then 
prevalent  in  the  practice  of  works.  Here  we  find  a  weak 
spot  in  the  religious  life  of  the  time,  nor  is  it  unlikely  that 
grave  faults  and  repulsive  excesses  were  to  be  found  even 
in  the  Augustinian  monasteries  with  which  Luther  was 
acquainted.  We  have  already  drawn  attention  to  the 
formalism  which  in  many  cases  had  affected  the  clergy  and 
the  monastic  houses.  The  often  one-sided  cultivation  of 
exterior  works,  which,  for  instance,  by  the  Indulgence- 
preachers,  were  proclaimed  unfailing  in  their  effects  ;  the 
popular  excesses  in  saint-worship  ;  far-fetched  legends  and 
exhortations  to  imitate  the  extraordinary  practices  of 
saintly  heroes  ;  the  stepmotherly  treatment  meted  out  in 
the  pulpit  to  the  regular  and  ordinary  duties  of  a  Christian  ; 
the  self-interest,  avarice  and  jealousy  rampant  in  con- 
fraternities, pilgrimages  and  other  public  expressions  of 
worship,  faults  which  had  slipped  in  partly  owing  to  the 
petty  egotism  of  the  corporations  and  Orders,  partly  to 
the  greed  of  their  members,  partly  to  a  mania  for  false 
piety  ;  all  this  may  well  have  made  a  painful  impression 
on  the  Wittenberg  Professor,  and  have  called  forth  his 
eloquent  reproof.  His  tendency  to  look  at  the  worst  side 
of  things  doubtless  contributed,  together  with  the  above 
reasons,  to  fill  him  with  distaste  for  good  works  in  general. 

The  extraordinary  exaggerations  of  which  he  was  guilty 
must,  however,  be  imputed  to  himself  alone.  It  has  been 
said  to  his  excuse  that,  as  Rural  Vicar,  he  had  been  able 
to  acquire  correct  information  regarding  the  state  of  things. 
But,  as  it  happens,  his  frequent  and  unrestrained  outbursts 
against  abuses  belong,  at  least  in  great  part,  to  the  time 
when  he  was  a  simple  monk,  who,  apart  from  his  journeys 
to  Rome  and  Cologne  and  his  stay  at  Erfurt,  had  seen  little 
outside  his  cell  beyond  the  adjoining  walls  of  Wittenberg. 
His  lectures  on  the  Psalms  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
both  offer  strange  examples  of  such  exaggerations,  though 
both  were  delivered  before  he  had  had  any  experience  as 
Rural  Vicar. 

Finally  his  own  morbid  personal  condition  must  be  taken 
into  account ;  the  after-effects  of  his  passing  fit  of  scrupu- 
losity, and  the  lasting  feeling  of  fear  which  sometimes  quite 
overmastered  him.  His  inclination  to  doubts  concerning 


125 

his  election  remained,  and  therewith  also  the  moral  results 
which  the  fear  of  being  predestined  to  hell  would  naturally 
exercise  upon  his  peculiar  temperament.  He  remained 
an  outspoken  predestinarian  of  the  most  violent  type.  (See 
chap.  vi.  2.)  He  had  to  come  to  terms  with  this  fear  of  hell, 
and  his  system  shows  the  result ;  in  many  respects  it 
appears  as  a  reaction  against  the  oppressive  burden  of  the 
thought  of  eternal  rejection. 

His  state  of  fear,  however,  as  already  indicated,  proceeded 
not  merely  from  the  numerous  temptations  of  which  he 
himself  speaks,  but  also  from  his  own  inward  depression, 
from  an  affection,  partly  psychical  and  partly  physical, 
which  often  prostrated  him  in  terror.  Only  later,  with  the 
help  of  other  facts  of  his  inner  life,  will  it  be  possible  to 
deal  with  this  darker  side  of  Luther  (vol.  vi.  xxxvi.).  He 
imagined  that  during  these  fits,  in  which  troubles  of  con- 
science also  intervened,  and  which,  according  to  his  de- 
scription, were  akin  to  the  pains  of  hell,  he  was  forsaken 
by  God,  and  sunk  in  the  eerie  night  of  the  soul  of  which  the 
mystics  treat.  He  also  considered  them  at  an  early  period 
as  a  trial  sent  by  God  and  intended  to  prepare  him  for 
higher  things.  In  trying  to  escape  from  this  feeling  of 
terror,  at  the  time  of  his  change  he  embraced  all  the  more 
readily  ideas  of  false  security  which  seemed  to  be  offered 
by  the  appropriation  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  the  rejection 
of  all  attempt  to  acquire  merit  on  one's  own  account. 
Psychologically,  it  is  comprehensible  that  this  solution 
seemed  to  him  to  let  a  beam  of  sunlight  into  the  darkness  of 
his  terror.  Anxious  to  escape  from  fear  he  threw  himself 
frantically  into  the  opposite  extreme,  into  a  system  of  self- 
pacification  hitherto  unknown  to  theology.  But  even  this 
new  system  did  not  serve  to  calm  him  in  the  first  stage  of  his 
error.  There  was  still  something  lacking,  so  he  felt,  in  his 
doctrine,  and  to  this  he  attained  only  in  the  second  stage 
of  the  process  by  his  discovery  that  the  seal  is  set  on  inward 
peace  by  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  assurance  of  salvation 
imparted  by  Faith.  (See  chap,  x.) 

Morbid  fears  prevented  any  childlike  trust  in  God  taking 
root  in  a  mind  so  inexplicably  agitated  as  his.  With  what 
great  fervour  he  prepared  himself  for  his  priestly  ordination, 
and  for  celebrating  his  first  Mass,  may  here  be  illustrated 
by  his  own  statement,  that  he  then  read  Gabriel  Bid's  book 


126  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

on  the  Mass  ("  Sacri  canonis  missce  expositio  liter alis  ac 
mystica  ")  "  with  a  bleeding  heart."  So  he  himself  says 
later,  when  he  also  speaks  of  the  work,  then  widely  used, 
as  "  an  excellent  book,  as  I  then  thought."1  From  the  tone 
of  his  letter  of  invitation  to  his  first  Mass  we  can  judge  of 
his  state  of  commotion.  The  confusion  and  trouble  which  he 
experienced  at  his  first  Mass,  and  the  fear  which  seized  him 
during  the  procession  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  lead  us  to 
conclude  that  he  was  readily  overcome  by  vain  apprehen- 
sions combined  with  physical  excitement.  Here  also  belongs 
Luther's  later  statement  concerning  the  fears  which  he 
(and  others  too)  experienced  when  in  the  monastery  at 
the  smallest  ritual  blunders,  as  though  '  they  had  been 
great  sins ;  such  an  assertion,  though  exaggerated  and 
untrue,  is  probably  an  echo  of  his  own  troubled  state 
during  the  liturgical  ceremonies. 

It  is  possible  that  those  fears  may  have  been  the  cause 
of  his  great  pessimism  with  regard  to  human  works.  They 
may  have  contributed  to  make  him  see  sin  in  what  was 
merely  the  result  of  fallen  nature  with  its  involuntary 
concupiscences,  without  any  consent  of  the  will.  Such  fears 
may  have  pursued  him  when  he  began  to  brood  over  the 
doctrine  of  man's  powers,  original  sin  and  grace  ;  we  speak 
of  his  "  brooding,"  for  his  inclinations  at  that  time  were 
to  a  melancholy  contemplation  of  things  unseen.  The 
timidity  which  he  had  acquired  in  the  early  days  of  his 
boyhood  and  at  school  doubtless  had  its  effect  in  keeping 
him  in  such  moods,  apart  from  his  own  temperament. 

On  close  examination  of  Luther's  theological  studies  we 
find  that  his  preparation  for  the  office  of  professor' — so  far 
as  a  knowledge  of  the  positive  doctrine  of  the  Church,  of 
the  Fathers  and  of  good  Scholasticism  is  concerned — was 
all  too  meagre. 

He  had  not  at  his  command  the  time  necessary  for  pene- 
trating deeply  into  dogma  or  into  its  presentment  by 
earlier  exponents.  What  was  said  above  of  his  course  of 

1  Lauterbach,  "Tagebuch,"  p.  18.  Biel's  much-esteemed  book  on 
the  Mass  was  composed  principally  of  discourses  to  the  clergy  delivered 
in  the  cathedral  at  Mayence  by  his  friend  and  teacher  Egeling  Becker 
of  Brunswick.  In  the  title  Biel  speaks  of  him  as  "  vita  pariter  el 
doctrina  prcefulgidus."  Adolf  Franz,  "  Die  Messe  im  deutschen  Mittel- 
alter"  (1902),  p.  550  ff. 


INSUFFICIENT   TRAINING          127 

studies  must,  however,  be  supplemented  by  some  further 
details. 

After  his  ordination  in  Erfurt,  at  Easter,  1507,  he  began  the 
two-year  course  of  theology  to  which  alone  the  privileges  of  the 
Augustinians  obliged  him.  In  addition  to  the  lectures,  which, 
as  was  usual,  were  based  on  the  Sentences  of  Peter  Lombard, 
there  was  also  the  Office  in  Choir  ;  the  pupils  of  the  Order  were 
indeed  on  lecture  days  not  obliged  to  attend  Matins,  Sext  and 
Compline,  but  the  latter  had  to  be  said  by  Luther  privately,  as 
he  was  a  priest.  While  the  lectures  on  the  Sentences  were  still 
in  progress,  Luther  was  pursuing  his  scriptural  studies.  Before 
the  full  time  had  expired  however,  after  about  eighteen  months 
of  theological  study,  he  was,  as  mentioned  before,  called  to  the 
University  of  Wittenberg  at  the  commencement  of  the  winter 
term,  1508,  in  order  to  deliver  "  Lectiones  publicce  "  on  moral 
philosophy,  i.e.  on  the  Nicomachean  Ethics  of  Aristotle.  He 
was,  it  is  true,  expected  to  prosecute  his  theological  studies  at  the 
same  time  by  attending  lectures,  but  for  this  he  can  scarcely  have 
found  much  time,  seeing  that  he  had  himself  to  give  a  daily 
lecture  of  one  hour  on  so  difficult  a  subject  as  the  Ethics  in  the 
Faculty  of  Philosophy.  A  capable  young  man  was  needed  by 
Staupitz  to  supply  the  requirements  of  the  University,  which  was 
largely  under  his  care,  for  the  former  lecturer  on  Ethics, 
Wolfgang  Ostermayr,  had,  so  it  appears,  suddenly  left,  and  dire 
necessity  caused  the  incompleteness  of  Luther's  philosophical 
training  to  be  overlooked.  Staupitz  was  the  more  willing  to 
shut  his  eyes  to  what  was  wanting,  as  he  was  personally  much 
attached  to  the  highly  promising  lecturer,  about  whom  moreover 
he  had  already  his  plans.  That  Luther  was  not  particularly 
pleased  at  the  way  in  which  he  was  employed,  we  learn  from  his 
Table-Talk  :  "At  Erfurt  I  was  reading  nothing  but  the  Bible, 
when  God,  in  a  wonderful  manner,  and  contrary  to  everyone's 
expectations,  sent  me  from  Erfurt  to  Wittenberg ;  that  was  a  nice 
come  down  for  me."1  The  word  actually  made  use  of  in  the  last 
sentence  was  a  slang  expression  of  the  students  and  implied  that 
his  new  position  was  not  to  his  liking.  It  was  less  the  overwork 
than  his  antipathy  to  philosophy  and  Aristotle  that  made  him 
feel  uncomfortable  ;  he  himself  complains  :  "  violentum  est 
studium,  maxime  philosophice"  in  his  letter  from  Wittenberg  to 
Johann  Braun  in  Eisenach  (March  17,  1509).  In  this  letter  he 
also  confesses  that  he  is  longing  to  exchange  philosophy  for 
theology. 2  After  a  single  term  his  professors  thought  him  worthy 
of  the  degree  of  "  Bacularius  (Baccalaureus)  Biblicus."  This  was 
the  lowest  theological  degree,  and  was  conferred  on  him  by 
Staupitz  the  Dean  on  March  9,  1509,  according  to  the  Dean' 

1  "Tischreden,"  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  58,  p.  243. 

2  "  Brief wechsel,"  ],  p.  6  :   he  yearns  for  theology  which  examines 
"  the  kernel  of  the  nut  and  the  marrow  of  the  bones  :    quae  nudeum 
nucis  et  medullam  tritici  et  medullam  oasium  scrutotur." 


128  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Register  of  the  Theological  Faculty.  Thus  did  he  pass  the  two 
years  of  his  course  of  theology. 

Besides  the  lecture  on  philosophy  he  had  now  also  to  discourse 
daily  for  one  hour  on  portions  of  Holy  Scripture,  teaching  being 
then  considered  a  part  of  the  course  of  studies.  In  addition  to 
this  he  was  obliged  to  attend  the  theological  lectures  and  disputa- 
tions. "  Indeed  a  colossal  task,"  says  a  Protestant  Luther- 
scholar,  "  which  shows  what  great  demands  Staupitz  made  on 
the  powers  of  his  pupils."1 

The  next  degree  in  theology,  that  of  "  Sententiarius  "  was  to 
have  been  conferred  on  Luther,  as  we  know,  in  the  autumn  of 
1509,  when  suddenly,  owing  to  internal  disputes,  he  was  recalled 
from  Wittenberg  to  his  monastery  at  Erfurt.  What  prospect  of 
quiet  theological  study  opened  out  before  him  there  ?  At  Erfurt 
his  preparation  again  consisted  principally  in  teaching  and  in 
disputing  in  his  own  peculiar  way.  As  soon  as  the  University  had 
accepted  him  as  "  Sententiarius,"  he  had  at  once  to  give  theo- 
logical lectures  on  the  Sentences.  He  was  also  employed  in  the 
monastery,  together  with  Dr.  Nathin,  as  sub-regent  of  house 
studies,  i.e.  in  the  instruction  of  the  novices  in  the  duties  of 
their  profession.  At  the  same  time  he  not  only  continued  his 
accustomed  biblical  reading,  but,  in  order  to  be  able  to  prosecute 
it  more  thoroughly,  began  to  study  Greek  and  Hebrew,  in  which 
Johann  Lang,  an  Augustinian  who  has  been  frequently  mentioned 
and  who  was  a  trained  Humanist,  rendered  him  appreciable 
service.  The  eighteen  months  he  spent  in  the  Erfurt  monastery 
were  distracted  by  the  dissensions  within  the  Order,  by  his 
journeys  to  Halle  and  then  to  Rome  and  his  intercourse  with 
Erfurt  Humanists,  such  as  Petrejus  (Peter  Eberbach).  After  his 
return  from  five  months'  absence  in  Rome,  the  dispute  in  the 
Order  continued  to  hinder  his  studies  and  finally  drove  him  to 
the  friends  of  Staupitz  at  Wittenberg,  as  soon  as  he  had  declared 
himself  against  the  Erfurt  Observantines.  Thence  the  affairs  of 
the  Order  carried  him  in  May,  1512,  to  the  Chapter  at  Cologne, 
where  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity  was  conferred  upon  him. 
During  his  preparation  for  his  doctorate  he  already  began,  urged 
on  by  Staupitz,  to  preach  in  the  monastery  church  at  Witten- 
berg, where  the  Elector  once  heard  him  and  was  filled  with 
admiration.  He  was  also  always  ready  to  assist  others  with  their 
work,  as  for  instance  when  he  prepared  for  the  Provost  the 
address  to  be  delivered  before  the  Synod  at  Leitzkau.  And  when 
at  thirty  years  of  age,  in  October,  1515,  he  undertook,  as  Doctor, 
to  deliver  the  lectura  in  biblia  at  the  University  of  Wittenberg, 
this  was  not  in  his  case  the  commencement  of  a  career  of  learned 
leisure,  but  the  filling  of  a  position  encumbered  with  the  cure  of 
souls,  with  preaching  and  much  monastic  business. 

In  view  of  his  defective  education  in  theology  properly  so 
called,  we  may  well  raise  the  question  how,  without  any  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  subject,  he  could  feel  himself  summoned  to 
undertake  such  far-reaching  theological  changes. 

1  G.  Oergel,  "  Vom  jungen  Luther,"  Erfurt,  1899,  p.  113. 


INSUFFICIENT   TRAINING          129 

"  At  the  parting  of  the  ways,"  says  Denifle,  regarding  Luther's 
knowledge  of  theology,  "  and  even  when  he  had  already  set  up 
his  first  momentous  theses  and  declared  war  on  Scholasticism, 
he  was  still  but  half-educated.  .  .  .  He  knew  nothing  of  the 
golden  age  of  Scholasticism,  and  was  even  unacquainted  with  the 
doctor  of  his  own  Order  [who  followed  the  greater  Schoolmen] 
^Egydius  of  Rome."  "  He  was  a  self-taught,  not  a  methodically 
trained,  man."1  In  spite  of  his  self-reliance,  a  feeling  of  the 
insufficiency  of  his  education  seems  to  have  tormented  him  at  the 
outset.  We  should  not  perhaps  be  justified  in  accepting  what  he 
said  in  later  years,  that  he  had  at  first  "  been  greatly  afraid  of  the 
pulpit  "  even  when  (in  his  second  stay  at  Wittenberg)  it  was  only 
a  question  of  preaching  "  in  the  Refectory  before  the  brethren."2 
But  according  to  his  own  statement,  he  expressed  very  strongly 
to  Staupitz  his  fear  of  taking  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity, 
and  two  years  later  he  declared  that  he  had  only  yielded  to 
pressure.3  But  Staupitz,  who  urged  him  forward  with  excessive 
zeal,  had  said  in  his  presence  when  Luther  preached  before  the 
Elector  :  "  I  will  prepare  for  Your  Highness  in  this  man  a  very 
special  Doctor,  who  will  please  you  well,"  words  which  the  Elector 
did  not  forget  and  of  which  he  reminded  Staupitz  in  1518.4 

The  fact  that  Staupitz  made  such  slight  demands  in  Luther's 
case  regarding  theological  preparation  may  be  explained  from 
his  own  course  of  studies.  His  previous  history  shows  his 
studies  to  have  been  anything  but  deep,  and  this  is  a  matter 
worth  noting,  because  it  is  an  example  of  how  a  solid  study  of 
theology  was  at  that  time  often  wanting  even  in  eminent  men  in 
the  Church.  After  he  had  been  entered  at  Tubingen  in  1497  as 
Master  of  Arts,  he  commenced  (October  29,  1498),  the  biblical 
course,  and,  a  little  more  than  two  months  later  (January  10, 
1499),  began  to  deliver  theological  lectures  on  the  Sentences. 
Half  a  year  of  this  qualified  him  for  the  Licentiate,  and,  a  day 
after,  he  became  Doctor  of  Divinity.  "  These  untrained  theo- 
logians," says  Denifle,  after  giving  the  dates  just  mentioned, 
"  wanted  to  reform  theology,  and  looked  with  contempt  on  the 
theology  of  the  Middle  Ages,  of  which  they  were  utterly  ignorant."  6 

1  Denifle,  I1,  p.  501  f. 

2  Oergel,  p.  118,  from  the  Gotha  MS.,  A  262,  fol.  258. 

3  This  is  at  least  what  he  assures  the  Erfurt  Faculty,  December 
21,  1514.     "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  24. 

4  Letter  of  the  Elector  to  Staupitz  (April  7,  1518),  in  Kolde,  "  Anal. 
Lutherans,"  p.  314. 

5  "  Luther  und  Luthertum,"  I2,  p.  607,  n.  1. 


I.— K 


CHAPTER   IV 

"  i  AM  OF  OCCAM'S  PARTY  " 
1.  A  closer  examination  of  Luther's  Theological  Training 

IT  was  not  time  only  which  was  wanting  in  Luther's  case 
for  a  deep  course  of  theological  study,  he  was  even  denied 
what  was  equally  essential,  namely,  a  really  scholarly 
presentment  of  theology  such  as  is  to  be  found  in  the  best 
period  of  Scholasticism. 

The  great  Schoolmen  of  the  Middle  Ages,  with  their 
finished  system,  combining  a  pious  veneration  for  the 
traditions  of  the  Fathers  with  high  flights  of  thought,  were 
almost  unknown  to  him  ;  at  least,  he  never  esteemed  or 
made  any  attempt,  to  penetrate  himself  with  the  learning 
of  Albertus  Magnus,  Thomas  of  Aquin  or  Bonaventure, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  in  the  Church  their  teaching, 
particularly  that  of  Aquinas,  already  took  the  first  place, 
owing  to  the  approval  of  the  Holy  See.  Luther  frequently 
displayed  his  utter  ignorance  of  Thomism,  as  we  shall  show 
later.1 

The  nominalistic  philosophy  and  theology  offered  him  by 
the  schools  he  attended  has,  with  reason,  been  described 
as  a  crippled  parody  of  true  Scholasticism.  In  this,  its 
latest  development,  Scholasticism  had  fallen  from  its 
height,  and,  abandoning  itself  to  speculative  subtleties, 
had  opened  a  wide  field  to  Nominalism  and  its  disintegrat- 
ing criticism.  The  critical  acumen  demonstrated  by  John 
Duns  Scotus,  the  famous  Franciscan  Doctor  (Doctor  Sub- 
tills),  who  died  at  Cologne  in  1308,  the  late-comers  would 
fain  have  further  emphasised.  Incapable  as  they  were  of 

1  When  Luther  in  his  answers  to  Prierias  (Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  661), 
angered  at  his  opponent's  frequent  references  to  the  Angelic  Doctor, 
remarks  :  "  etiam  ea  quce  fidei  sunt,  in  qucestiones  vocal  et  fidem  vertit 
in  '  utrum,'  "  the  words  "  qucestiones  "  and  "  utrum  "  lead  us  to  doubt 
whether  he  had  done  more  than  read  the  headings  of  the  "  Questions." 
Cp.  Denifle,  I1,  p.  550. 

130 


WILLIAM   OF   OCCAM  131 

producing  anything  great  themselves,  they  exercised  their 
wits  in  criticising  every  insignificant  proposition  which  could 
possibly  be  questioned  in  philosophy  and  theology.  The 
Franciscan,  William  of  Occam  (Ockham,  Surrey),  called 
Doctor  Singularu,  or  Invincibilis,  also  Venerabilis  Inceptor 
Nominalium,  was  one  of  the  boldest  and  most  prolific 
geniuses  of  the  Middle  Ages  in  the  domain  of  philosophy  and 
theology.  His  great  works,  composed  during  his  professor- 
ship, especially  his  Commentary  on  the  Sentences,  his 
"  Centifolium  "  and  his  "  Quodlibeta"  are  proofs  of  this. 
On  theological  questions  concerning  poverty  he  came  into 
conflict  with  the  Pope,  his  Sentences  were  condemned  by 
the  University  of  Paris,  he  appealed  from  the  Holy  See  to  a 
General  Council,  was  excommunicated  in  1328,  protested 
against  the  decisions  of  the  General  Chapter  of  the  Order, 
and  then  took  refuge  with  Lewis  of  Bavaria,  the  schismatic, 
whose  literary  defender  he  became.  He  wrote  for  him, 
among  other  things,  his  ecclesiastico-political  "  Dialogus," 
and  even  after  his  protector's  death  continued  to  resist 
Clement  VI.  Occam  died  at  Munich  in  1349,  reconciled 
with  his  Order,  though  whether  the  excommunication  had 
already  been  removed  or  not  is  doubtful. 

He  revived  Nominalism  in  philosophy  and  theology. 
His  teaching  was  so  much  that  of  the  schools  through  which 
Luther  had  been  that  the  latter  could  declare  :  "  sum 
occamicce  factionis,"1  and  speak  quite  simply  of  Occam  as 
"  magister  meus."2  It  cannot,  however,  be  said,  as  it  recently 
has  been,  that  Luther  "  prided  himself  on  being  Occam's 
disciple,"  and  that  he  "  would  not  give  a  refusal  to  his 
beloved  master  "  ;  for  it  was  more  in  irony  than  in  earnest 
that  he  spoke  when  he  said :  "  I  also  am  of  Occam's  party  "  ; 
and  when,  as  late  as  1530,  he  still  speaks  of  "  Occam,  my 
beloved  master,"  3  this  is  said  in  jest  only  in  order  to 
be  able  to  accuse  him  more  forcibly  as  an  expert  with  the 
greatest  of  errors  ;  nevertheless,  he  places  Occam  in  point 
of  learning  far  above  Thomas  of  Aquin,  the  "  so-called 
Doctor  of  Doctors,"  whom  he  despised.  Regarding,  how- 
ever, the  esteem  in  which  Occam  was  held  in  his  youth,  he 
afterwards  said  :  "  We  had  to  give  him  the  title  Vener- 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  600 ;    "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  5,  p.  137. 
a  Cordatus,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  165. 
3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  242,  p.  375. 


132  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

abilis  huius  sectce  [scholce]  primus  repertor,"  but  adds : 
"  Happy  are  you  fmy  table-companions]  in  not  having  to 
learn  the  dung  which  was  offered  me."1  He  felt  compelled, 
nevertheless,  to  praise  Occam's  dialectic  skill  and  his  in- 
exhaustible acuteness,  and  for  his  part  considered  him  the 
most  gifted  of  the  Schoolmen  ("  summus  dialecticus,  scholas- 
ticorum  doctorum  sine  dubio  princeps  et  ingeniosissimus  ").2 
It  was  not  only  at  a  later  period  that  he  was  ready  to  admit 
his  weaknesses,  for  even  at  the  beginning  of  his  course,  in 
the  Commentary  on  Romans  (1515-16),  he  attacks  certain 
essential  errors  of  Occam  and  his  school. 

His  acquaintance  with  the  master  he  owed,  moreover, 
more  to  Occam's  disciples,  i.e.  to  the  later  theologians  of 
the  Occamist  school,  more  especially  Gabriel  Biel,  than  to 
his  own  reading  of  the  voluminous  and  unwieldy  works 
of  Occam  himself.  We  are  already  aware  that,  of  the  dis- 
ciples and  intellectual  heirs  of  Occam,  he  studied  more 
particularly  the  two  well-known  writers  d'Ailly,  Cardinal 
of  Cambrai — whom  Luther  usually  calls  quite  simply  the 
Cardinal — whose  ideas  were  very  daring,  and  the  humble 
Gabriel  Biel,  Professor  at  Tubingen,  whose  writings,  clear, 
and  rich  in  thought,  possessed  many  good  qualities. 

Their  one-sided  Nominalism  unfortunately  led  these 
Occamists  to  an  excessive  estimate  of  the  powers  of  nature 
and  an  undervaluing  of  grace,  and  also  to  a  certain  incorrect 
view  of  the  supernatural.  We  must  add  that  they  were 
disposed  to  neglect  Holy  Scripture  and  to  set  too  much 
store  on  their  speculations,  and  that,  with  regard  to  the 
relations  between  reason  and  faith,  they  did  not  abide  by 
the  approved  principles  and  practice  of  the  earlier  School- 
men. 

The  Occamist  theology  strongly  influenced  the  talented 
and  critical  pupil,  though  diversely.  Most  of  the  elements 
of  which  it  was  made  up  repelled  him,  and  as  he  regarded 
them  as  essential  parts  of  Scholasticism,  they  filled  him 
with  a  distaste  for  Scholasticism  generally.  Other  of  its 
elements  attracted  him,  namely,  those  more  in  conformity 
with  his  ideas  and  feeling.  These  he  enrolled  in  the  service 
of  his  theological  views,  which — again  following  Occam's 

1  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden"  (ed.  Kroker),  p.  172.     Uttered  between 
the  7th  and  the  24th  August,  1540. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  183;   "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  4,  p.  188. 


OPPOSED   TO   OCCAMISM  133 

example- — he  developed  with  excessive  independence.  Thus 
the  tendency  to  a  false  separation  of  natural  and  super- 
natural commended  itself  to  him  ;  he  greedily  seized  upon 
the  ideas  of  Nominalism  with  regard  to  imputation  after 
he  had  commenced  groping  about  for  a  new  system  of 
theology.  His  greatest  objection  was  for  the  views  of  his 
teachers  regarding  the  powers  of  man  and  grace.  This  it 
was,  more  especially,  which  raised  in  him  the  spirit  of 
contradiction  and  set  him  on  a  path  of  his  own.  To  one 
in  his  timorous  state  such  views  were  unsympathetic ;  he 
himself  scented  sin  and  imperfection  everywhere  ;  also  he 
preferred  to  see  the  powers  of  the  will  depreciated  and  every- 
thing placed  to  the  account  of  grace  and  Divine  election. 
Thus,  what  he  read  into  Holy  Scripture  concerning  faith 
and  Christ  seemed  to  him  to  speak  a  language  entirely 
different  from  that  of  the  subtleties  of  the  Occamists. 

His  unfettered  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  doctrinal 
views  submitted  to  him  was  quite  in  accordance  with  his 
character.  He  was  not  one  to  surrender  himself  simply  to 
authority.  His  unusual  ability  incited  him  to  independent 
criticism  of  opinions  commonly  received,  and  to  voice  his 
opposition  in  the  public  disputations  against  his  not  over- 
brilliant  Nominalist  professors  ;  the  strong  appeal  which 
he  made  to  the  Bible,  with  which  the  others  were  less  well 
acquainted,  and  to  the  rights  of  faith  and  the  grace  of  Christ, 
was  in  his  favour. 

2.  Negative  Influence  of  the  Occamist  School  on  Luther 

Besides  the  recently  published  Commentary  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  various  statements  in  his  sermons, 
disputations  and  letters  prove  the  opposition  that  existed 
between  Luther  and  his  own  school.  In  the  Disputation 
of  1517  entitled  "  Contra  scholasticam  theologiam"  for 
instance,  he  expressly  names,  as  the  opponents  against 
whom  his  various  theses  are  aimed,  Scotus,  Occam,  the 
Cardinal,  Gabriel,  and,  generally,  "  omnes  scholastici  "  or 
"  communis  sentential  "  dictum  commune,"  "  usus  mul- 
tomm,"  "  philosophi  "  or  "  morales."1 

Before  we  proceed  to  examine  the  individual  points  of 
Luther's  conflict  with  Occamism  and  with  what  he  con- 
sidered the  teaching  of  Scholasticism  as  a  whole,  two 
1  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  315  scq. 


134  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

general  points  of  this  opposition  must  be  mentioned.    His 
first  grievance  is  the  neglect  of  Holy  Scripture. 

A  sensible  want  in  the  Divinity  studies  of  that  time  lay,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  in  the  insufficient  use  of  the  positive  foundations 
of  theology,  i.e.  above  all  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  also  of  the 
tradition  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  and  the  decisions  of  the 
Church  in  her  office  as  teacher.  "  Luther  had  rightly  recognised," 
says  Albert  Weiss,  "  what  harm  resulted  from  the  regrettable 
neglect  of  Holy  Scripture  on  the  part  of  so  many  theologians,  and 
therefore  he  chose  as  his  watchword  the  cry  for  the  improvement 
of  theology  by  a  return  to  the  Bible." 1  "  That  Luther  was  moved 
to  great  anger  by  the  Nominalists'  neglect  of  the  Bible  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at."2  "He  would  not  have  been  Luther,"  the  same 
author  rightly  says,  "  had  he  not  soon  veered  round  to  the  other 
extreme,  i.e.  to  the  battle-cry :  Scripture  only,  and  nothing  but 
the  Scripture,  away  with  all  Scholasticism." 

This  abuse,  however,  had  already  been  reproved  and  bewailed 
by  the  Church  before  Luther's  time  ;  there  is  no  dearth  of 
statements  by  the  very  highest  authorities  urging  a  remedy, 
though  it  is  true  more  should  have  been  done.  Pope  Clement  VI 
wrote  reprovingly  to  the  University  of  Paris,  on  May  20,  1346  : 
"  Most  theologians  do  not  trouble  themselves  about  the  text 
of  Holy  Scripture,  about  the  actual  words  of  their  principal 
witnesses,  about  the  expositions  of  the  Saints  and  Doctors,  i.e. 
concerning  the  sources  from  which  real  theology  is  taken,  a  fact 
which  is  bitterly  to  be  deplored.  ...  In  place  of  this  they 
entangle  themselves  in  philosophical  questions  and  in  disputes 
which  merely  pander  to  their  cleverness,  in  doubtful  interpreta- 
tions, dangerous  doctrines  and  the  rest."3  But  "with  the 
prevalent  spirit  of  formalism  and  disorder,  embodied  chiefly  in 
Nominalism,"  "  a  healthy  and  at  the  same  time  fruitful  treatment 
of  Holy  Scripture  had  become  impossible.  .  .  .  These  were 
abuses  which  had  long  been  calling  for  the  reintroduction  of  a 
positive  and  more  scriptural  treatment  of  theology."4  Though 
the  judgment  passed  by  Luther  in  his  later  years  on  the  neglect  of 
Holy  Scripture  was  somewhat  too  general  (for  it  was  historically 
untrue  to  say  that  Scripture  had  ever  been  altogether  given  up 
by  the  Church),5  yet  contemporaries  agree  with  him  in  blaming 
the  too  extensive  use  of  Aristotle's  philosophy  in  the  schools  to 
the  detriment  of  the  Bible-text.  Long  before,  Gerson,  whose 
books  were  in  Luther's  hands,  had  laid  stress  on  the  importance 
of  Holy  Scripture  for  theology.  "  Holy  Scripture,"  he  says,  "  is 
a  Rule  of  Faith,  which  it  is  only  necessary  to  understand  aright  ; 
against  it  there  is  no  appeal  to  authority  or  to  the  decisions  of 
human  reason  :  nor  can  custom,  law  or  practice  have  any  weight 
if  proved  to  be  contrary  to  Holy  Scripture."6 

1  Denifle-Weiss,  2,  p.  331.  2  Ibid.,  p.  229. 

3  Denifle,  "  Chartularium  universitatis  Paris.,"  2,  p.  588. 

4  Thus  A.  Weiss,  p.  330.  B  See  volume  v.,  xxxiv.,  3. 
6  "Opp.,"  ed   Antv.,  1706,  p.  457. 


THE  SCHOOLMEN  AND  SCRIPTURE  135 

Luther,  with  palpable  exaggeration,  lays  the  charge  at  the 
door  of  theology  as  a  whole,  even  of  the  earlier  school,  and  would 
have  us  believe  that  the  abuse  was  inseparable  from  ecclesiastical 
science.  He  speaks  to  this  effect  more  and  more  forcibly  during 
the  course  of  his  controversies.  Thus  in  1530  he  says  of  the 
Scholastics,  that  they  "  despised  Holy  Scripture."  "  What !  they 
exclaimed,  the  Bible  ?  Why,  the  Bible  is  a  heretic's  book,  and 
you  need  only  read  the  Doctors  to  find  that  out.  I  know  that  I 
am  not  lying  in  saying  this,  for  I  grew  up  amongst  them  and  saw 
and  heard  all  about  them."  And  so  they  had  arrived  at  doctrines 
about  which  one  must  ask  :  "Is  this  the  way  to  honour  Christ's 
blood  and  death  ?  "  Everything  was  full  of  "  idle  doctrines 
which  did  not  agree  among  themselves,  and  strange  new 
opinions."1  Occam,  he  declares  in  his  Table-Talk  in  1540,  "ex- 
celled them  all  in  genius  and  has  confuted  all  the  other  schools, 
but  even  he  said  and  wrote  in  so  many  words  that  it  could  not 
be  proved  from  Scripture  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  necessary  for  a 
good  work."2  "  These  people  had  intelligence,  had  time  for  work 
and  had  grown  grey  in  study,  but  about  Christ  they  understood 
nothing,  because  they  esteemed  Holy  Scripture  lightly.  No 
one  read  the  Bible  so  as  to  steep  himself  in  its  contents  with 
reflection,  it  was  only  treated  like  a  history  book. 3 

It  is  true  that  the  scholastic  treatment  of  the  doctrines  of 
faith,  as  advocated  by  Occam  against  the  more  positive  school, 
disregarded  Holy  Scripture  to  such  an  extent  that,  in  the  master's 
subtle  Commentaries,  it  hardly  finds  any  place ;  even  in  the 
treatment  of  the  supernatural  virtues — faith,  hope  and  charity — 
Scripture  scarcely  intervenes.4  But  it  was  unjust  of  Luther,  on 
this  account,  to  speak  of  the  Schoolmen's  contempt  for  the  Bible, 
or  to  say,  for  instance  in  his  Table-Talk,  about  his  master,  Gabriel 
Biel,  whose  Commentary  on  the  Sentences  had  become,  so  to 
speak,  a  hand-book  :  "  The  authority  of  the  Bible  counted  for 
nothing  with  Gabriel."5  Biel  esteemed  and  utilised  the  Bible  as 
the  true  Word  of  God,  but  he  did  not  satisfy  young  Luther,  who 
desiderated  in  him  much  more  of  the  Bible  and  a  little  less  of 
philosophy.  The  "  word,"  he  declares,  was  not  cherished  by  the 


1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  242,  p.  375,  in  his  exhortation  to  the  clergy. 

2  More  on  this  below.     He  repeats  this  accusation  several  times, 
also  in  the  context  of  the  previous  passage.    He  is  confusing  natural 
good  works  with  supernatural  and  meritorious  good  works. 

3  Mathesius,  "Tischreden"  (Kroker),  p.  173.     Uttered  between  the 
7th  and  24th  August,  1540. 

*  Cp.,  for  instance,  Occam,  "  In  libros  sententiarum,"  Lugd.,  1495, 
1.  3,  q.  8  to  1.  The  passage  "  Nunc  autem  manent  fides,"  etc.,  is  the 
only  one  mentioned,  with  the  reference  "  Ad.  Cor."  Of  any  exegetical 
application  there  is  no  question  whatever.  Speculative  theology  left 
biblical  interpretation  too  exclusively  to  the  perfunctory  Bible  lecturers, 
and  assumed  as  well  known  and  proved  what  should  first  have  been 
positively  established. 

5  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  18.  Cp.  "  Colloquia,"  ed.  Bindseil, 
3,  p.  270. 


136  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

priests,  and  this  he  had  already  shown  in  his  Leitzkau  discourse 
to  be  the  reason  of  all  the  corruption.1 

The  preponderance  of  philosophy,  and  more  particularly 
the  excessive  authority  of  Aristotle,  in  the  theological 
method  of  his  circle  offered  Luther  a  second  point  of  attack. 
Here  also  it  was  a  question  of  a  rather  widely  spread  abuse 
which  the  better  class  of  Schoolmen  had  prudently  avoided. 
The  Nominalistic  schools,  generally  speaking,  showed  a 
tendency  to  a  rationalistic  treatment  of  the  truths  of  faith, 
which  affrighted  Luther  considerably.  General  ideas,  ac- 
cording to  the  Nominalists,  were  merely  "  nomina,"  i.e. 
empty  words  ;  Nominalists  concerned  themselves  only  with 
what  was  actual  and  tangible.  Nominalism  was  fond  of 
displaying  its  dialectic  and  even  its  insolence  at  the  expense 
of  theology  on  the  despised  Universal  ideas.  We  can 
understand  the  invective  with  which  Luther  gives  expression 
to  his  hatred  of  Scholasticism,  though  his  right  to  do  so 
arose  only  from  his  limited  acquaintance  with  those  few 
Scholastics  whom  he  had  chosen,2  or,  rather,  who  had 
been  allotted  to  him,  as  his  masters ;  the  schools  he 
attended  were  at  that  time  all  following  the  method  of  the 
Nominalists,  then  usually  known  as  "  modern." 

Already,  in  1509  (see  above,  p.  22),  a  severe  criticism  of 
Aristotle  appears  in  Luther's  marginal  notes.  This  is  in  a  gloss 
on  Augustine's  work  "  On  the  City  of  God  "  which  he  was  then 
devouring  as  a  sort  of  antidote  :  "  Far  more  apparent  is  the 
error  of  our  theologians  when  they  impudently  chatter  ('  impu- 
dentissime  garriunt ')  and  affirm  of  Aristotle  that  he  does  not 
deviate  from  Catholic  truth."3 

Luther's  later  exaggerations  need  not  be  refuted,  in  which  he 
complains  so  loudly  of  the  idolatrous  Aristotelian  worship  of 
reason  on  the  part  of  all  the  Scholastics.  It  was  in  general 
perfectly  well  known  regarding  Aristotle  that  he  had  erred,  and 
also  where  he  erred ;  books  had  even  been  written  dealing  with 
his  deviations  from  the  faith.  This,  however,  did  not  prevent 
many  from  over-estimating  him.  We  must  set  against  this,  how- 
ever, the  fact  that  Luther's  own  professor  of  philosophy  in  the 
University  of  Erfurt,  Bartholomew  Arnoldi  of  Usingen,  had 

1  See  above,  p.  83. 

*  Denifle- Weiss,  2,  p.  300  ff.,  where  the  danger  to  the  faith  which 
lay  in  the  foundation  tendency  of  Nominalism  is  strongly  emphasised, 
but  where  it  is  also  admitted  that  the  consequences  were  not  actually 
drawn,  and  that  it  required  "  centuries  of  thought  before  the  questions 
raised  were  pursued  to  their  bitter  end,"  p.  303. 

8  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  9,  p.  27. 


"ARISTOTLE  EQUAL  TO  CHRIST'*  137 

declared,  like  others  before  him,  that  those  who  represented 
the  Stagirite  as  without  errors  were  "  not  worthy  of  the  name  of 
philosophers,  for  they  were  not  lovers  of  the  truth  but  mocked  at 
philosophy  ;  they  should  just  read  their  hero  more  carefully  and 
they  would  find  that,  for  instance,  he  made  out  the  world  to  be 
without  any  beginning,  a  view  which  Moses,  the  prophet  of  truth, 
had  shown  to  be  an  error  ;  Scotus,  too,  wrote  in  the  first  book  of 
his  Commentary  on  the  Sentences,  that  the  works  of  Aristotle 
were  more  in  agreement  with  the  law  of  Mohammed  than  with  that 
of  Christ."1  Usingen  was  an  earnest  and  moderate  man,  who  did 
not  shrink,  even  in  his  philosophical  writings,  from  preferring 
Divine  Revelation  to  the  exaggeration  of  the  rights  of  reason. 
"  The  inadequacy  of  philosophers  is  as  apparent  as  the  great 
value  of  the  Sacred  Books.  The  latter  rise  far  above  the  know- 
ledge attained  by  mere  human  reason  and  natural  light."2 
Owing  to  the  fact  that  he  had  made  no  secret  of  his  views  in  his 
intercourse  with  Luther,  especially  when  they  became  more 
intimate  on  Luther's  entering  the  Order  to  which  he  himself 
belonged,3  we  can  understand  and  explain  the  sympathy  and 
respect  with  which  Luther  long  after  cherished  his  memory, 
though  the  path  he  followed  was  no  longer  that  of  his  old  teacher. 
Usingen  was  a  Nominalist,  but  his  example  shows  that  there 
were  some  enlightened  men  who  belonged  to  this  school,  and  who 
did  it  honour. 

In  the  course  of  time,  regardless  of  the  numerous  examples 
giving  him  the  lie,  Luther  came  ruthlessly  to  condemn  all  the 
Schoolmen  and  the  whole  Middle  Ages  ostensibly  on  the  ground 
of  the  pretended  poisoning  of  the  faith  by  Aristotle,  but  really 
because  he  himself  had  set  up  a  contradiction  between  faith  and 
reason.4  He  says  in  1521  that  the  Scholastics,  headed  by  Aquinas, 
"  solus  aristotelicissimus  ac  plane  Aristoteles  ipse,"  had  smuggled 
philosophy  into  the  world,  though  the  Apostle  had  condemned 
it ;  thus  it  became  too  powerful,  made  Aristotle  equal  to  Christ 
in  dignity  and  trustworthiness,  and  darkened  for  us  the  Sun  of 
righteousness  and  truth,  the  Son  of  God. 5  Three  years  before  he 
had  declared  in  writing  to  his  other  professor  of  philosophy  at 
the  University  of  Erfurt,  Jodocus  Trutfetter,  who  was  vexed 

1  "  Parvulus    philosophise    naturalis,"    Lips.,    1499,  fol.    136.      N. 
Paulus,   "  Der  Augustiner   Barth.    Arnold!  v.    Usingen"   (Strasburg 
"  Theol.  Studien,"  1,  3),  p.  4. 

2  Ibid,  fol  18  ;    Paulus,  ibid.,  p.  5. 

3  Paulus,  p.  17  ;    Oergel,  "  Vorn  jungen  Luther,"  p.  131. 

*  Cp.  e.g.  Luther's  theses  in  Drews'  Disputations,  p.  42  :  "  Ratio 
aversatur  fidem,  Solius  Dei  eat,  dare  fidem  contra  naturam.  contra 
rationem,  et  credere."  It  belongs  to  the  year  1536. 

5  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  5,  p.  335 ;  "  Besponsio  ad  Catharinum." 
Cp.  Weini.  ed.,  8,  127  :  "  De  Thoma  Aquino,  an  damnatus  vel  beatu* 
sit,  vehementissime  dubito.  .  .  .  Multa  hceretica  scripsit  et  autor  est 
regnantis  Aristotelis,  vastatoris  pice  doctrince."  He  continues,  saying 
that  he  is  entitled  to  hold  this  opinion,  "  qui  educatus  in  eis  sim  et 
cooEtaneorum  doctissimorum  ingenia  expertus,  optima  islius  generis 
scripta  conlemplatus."  So  in  "  Rationis  Latomiance  confutatio  "  (1521). 


138  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

with  his  theses  Contra  scholasticam  theologiam,  that  he  daily 
prayed  to  God  that  in  place  of  the  perverse  studies  in  vogue,  the 
wholesome  study  of  the  Bible  and  the  Fathers  might  again  be 
introduced  ("  ut  rursum  biblice  et  s.  patrum  purissima  studio, 
revocentur  ").*•  Yet  three  years  earlier,  in  his  first  lectures  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  he  had  said  to  his  pupils:  "let  us  learn 
to  know  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified,"  and  urged  them  not 
to  waste  their  time  in  the  study  of  the  foolish  whims  of  meta- 
physicians, but  at  most,  to  treat  philosophy  as  a  subject  which 
one  must  be  acquainted  with  in  order  to  be  able  to  refute  it,  and 
on  the  other  hand  to  throw  themselves  with  all  their  might  into 
the  study  of  Holy  Scripture. 2 

There  can  therefore  be  no  question,  as  we  have  seen,  that  his 
idea  that  philosophy  was  the  ruin  of  the  Church,  an  idea  present 
in  his  mind  even  in  his  earliest  public  life,  was  founded  on  the  many 
actually  existing  abuses,  though  his  own  ultra-spiritualism  and 
his  gloomy  mistrust  of  man's  nature  led  him  to  feel  the  evil  more 
than  others,  so  that,  in  reacting  against  it,  he  lost  his  balance 
instead  of  calmly  lending  his  assistance  towards  improving 
matters. 

Luther's  reaction  was  not  only  against  Occamism  in 
general,  but  also  against  various  particular  doctrines  of 
that  school,  especially,  as  stated  before,  against  such 
doctrines  as  exalted  the  powers  of  nature  at  the  expense 
of  grace. 

Here  again  he  committed  his  first  fault,  the  indefensible 
injustice  of  blindly  charging  Scholasticism  and  theology 
generally  with  what  he  found  faulty  in  his  own  narrow 
circle,  though  these  errors  had  been  avoided  by  St.  Thomas 
and  the  best  of  the  Schoolmen.  It  has  been  pointed  out 
that  he  was  not  acquainted  with  this  real  Scholasticism, 
nevertheless,  in  1519,  he  had  the  assurance  to  say  :  "  No 
one  shall  teach  me  scholastic  theology,  I  know  it."3  "I 
was  brought  up  amongst  them  (Thomas,  Bonaventure.  etc.), 
I  am  also  acquainted  with  the  minds  of  the  most  learned 
contemporaries  and  have  saturated  myself  in  the  best 
writings  of  this  sort."4 

He,  all  too  often,  gives  us  the  means  to  judge  the  value  of  this 
assertion  of  his.  In  the  same  year,  for  instance,  he  sums  up  the 
chief  points  of  the  theology  which  alone  he  had  learnt,  and  calls 

1  Letter  of  May  9,  1518,  "  Briefwechsel,"  l(xp.  190. 

2  Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  610,  n.  1. 

3  "  Werke,"    Weim.    ed.,    5,    p.    22 ;     "  Operationes   in   psalmos.' 
Written  in  1519  ff. 

4  Above,  p.  137,  note  5. 


"SOW  THEOLOGIANS"  139 

it  in  all  good  faith  the  scholastic  theology  of  the  Church,  though 
it  was  merely  the  meagre  theology  of  his  own  Occamist  professors. 
In  order  to  show  all  he  had  had  to  struggle  with  he  says  :  "1 
had  formerly  learned  among  the  monstrous  things  ('  monstra  ') 
which  are  almost  accounted  axioms  of  scholastic  theology  .  .  . 
that  man  can  do  his  part  in  the  acquiring  of  grace  ;  that  he  can 
remove  obstacles  to  grace  ;  that  he  is  able  to  oppose  no  hindrance 
to  grace  ;  that  he  can  keep  the  commandments  of  God  according 
to  the  letter,  though  not  according  to  the  intention  of  the  law- 
giver ;  that  he  has  freedom  of  choice  [personal  freedom  in  the 
work  of  salvation]  between  this  and  that,  between  both  contra- 
dictories and  contraries  ;  that  his  will  is  able  to  love  God  above 
all  things  through  its  purely  natural  powers  and  that  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  an  act  of  charity,  of  friendship,  by  merely  natural 
powers."1 

We  are  to  believe  that  these  were  the  "  axioms  of 
scholastic  theology  !  " 

Such  was  not  the  case.  For  all  acts  necessary  for  salva- 
tion true  Scholasticism  demanded  the  supernatural  "  pre- 
venting "  grace  of  God.2  Yet  as  early  as  1516  Luther  had 
elegantly  described  all  the  scholastic  theologians  as  "  Sow 
theologians,"  on  account  of  their  pretended  "  Deliria " 
against  grace.3  His  first  fault,  that  of  unwarranted  generali- 
sation, comes  out  clearly. 

The  second,  more  momentous,  fault  which  Luther  com- 
mitted was  to  fly  to  the  extreme  even  in  doctrine,  abolishing 
all  that  displeased  him  and  setting  up  as  his  main  thesis, 
that  man  can  do  nothing,  absolutely  nothing,  good.  Not 
only  did  he  say :  "I  learnt  nothing  in  scholastic  theology 
worth  remembering  ;  I  only  learnt  what  must  be  unlearnt, 
what  is  absolutely  opposed  to  Holy  Scripture  "  ("  omnino 
contraria  dirinis  litter  is  ").4  He  also  asserted  at  a  very 
early  period  that  Holy  Scripture  teaches  that  God's  grace 
does  everything  in  man  of  itself  alone  without  his  vital 
participation,  without  liberty,  without  resolve,  without 
merit.  Such  a  statement  does  not  indeed  appear  in  the 
Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  but  it  will  be  found  in  his 
academic  lectures  on  the  Pauline  Epistles,  more  especially 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  401. 

2  Cp.  Denifle,   I1,  p.  554,  where  he  refers  to  a  "  Treatise  on  the 
preparation  for  grace  "  to  appear  in  his  second  volume,  but  which  is 
not  contained  in  the  second  volume  edited  by  A.  Weiss. 

3  "  Schol.    Rom.,"    p.   110.     "0  stulti,  O    Sawtheologen."     He   is 
referring  to  the  "  theologi  scholastici,"  p.  108,  "  nostri  theologi,"  p.  111. 

4  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  414. 


140  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

in  the  Commentary  on  Romans.  For  a  moment  he  thought 
he  had  discovered  in  St.  Augustine  the  necessary  weapons 
against  the  formalism  of  his  school  of  theology,  but  now 
St.  Paul  appeared  to  him  to  give  the  loudest  testimony 
against  it ;  the  Apostle  is  so  determined  in  his  denunciation 
of  the  pride  of  human  reason  and  human  will,  and  in  pre- 
senting the  Gospel  of  the  Son  of  God,  faith  and  grace,  as 
the  only  salvation  of  mankind.  Luther  imagined  he  had 
found  in  Paul  the  doctrines  which  appealed  to  him  :  that 
all  human  works  were  equally  useless,  whether  for  eternal 
salvation  or  for  natural  goodness  ;  that  man's  powers  are 
good  for  nothing  but  sin  :  if  grace,  which  the  Apostle  extols, 
is  to  come  to  its  rights,  then  we  must  say  of  original  sin 
that  it  has  utterly  ruined  man's  powers  of  thinking  and 
willing  so  far  as  what  is  good  in  God's  sight  is  concerned  ; 
original  sin  still  lives,  even  in  the  baptised,  as  a  real  sin, 
being  an  invincible  attraction  to  selfishness  and  all  evil, 
more  particularly  to  that  of  the  flesh  ;  by  it  the  will  is  so 
enslaved  that  only  in  those  who  are  justified  by  grace  can 
there  be  any  question  of  freedom  for  good. 

As  regards  Occam's  teaching  concerning  man,  his  Fall  and  his 
powers,  so  far  as  this  affects  the  question  of  a  correct  under- 
standing of  Luther's  development  :  in  the  matter  of  original  sin 
it  agreed  with  that  of  Aquinas  and  Scotus,  according  to  which  its 
essence  was  a  carentia  iustitice.  debitce,  i.e.  originalis  ;  likewise  it 
asserted  the  existence  of  concupiscence  in  man,  the  fomes  or 
tinder  of  sin,  as  Occam  is  fond  of  calling  it,  as  the  consequence  of 
original  sin  ;  on  the  other  hand  it  minimised  too  much  the  evil 
effects  of  original  sin  on  the  reason  and  on  the  will,  by  assuming 
that  these  powers  still  remain  in  man  almost  unimpaired.  This 
was  due  to  the  nominalistic  identification  of  the  soul  with  its 
faculties ;  as  the  soul  remained  the  same  as  before,  so,  they  said, 
the  powers  as  a  whole  also  remained  the  same.1  The  "  disabling  " 

1  Biel,  in  2  Sent.,  dist.  30,  q.  2  ad  4  (Brixiae,  1574) :  "  Eectitudo  autem 
naturalis  voluntatis,  eius  sc.  libertas,  non  corrumpitur  per  peccatum  ; 
ilia  enim  est  realiter  ipsa  voluntas,  nee  ab  ea  separabilis.'"  Cp.  however 
Biel's  other  passage,  quoted  by  Denifle-Weiss,  1,  p.  535,  n.  4,  where 
he  speaks  differently.  The  teaching  of  the  school  of  Occam  deserves 
more  careful  examination  than  has  hitherto  been  bestowed  on  it,  and 
perhaps  the  Luther  studies  which  have  been  so  actively  carried  on  of 
late  will  promote  this.  Meanwhile  we  must  give  a  warning  against 
statements  which  presuppose  an  excessive  alienation  of  this  school 
from  the  general  teaching  of  the  Church.  Occam  has  recently  been 
represented  by  the  Protestant  party,  in  discussions  on  Luther's  de- 
velopment, as  the  "  outspoken  antipodes  of  mediaeval  Christendom," 
"  whose  aim  it  clearly  was  to  strike  at  the  very  root  of  the  ancient 


BIEL'S   FAULTS  141 

of  these  powers  of  which  St.  Thomas  and  the  other  Scholastics 
speak,  i.e.  the  weakening  which  the  Council  of  Trent  also  teaches 
("  liberum  arbitrium  viribus  attenuatum  et  inclinatum  "),1  was  not 
sufficiently  emphasised. 

Gabriel  Biel,  whose  views  are  of  some  weight  on  account  of 
his  connection  with  Luther,  finds  the  rectitude  of  the  natural  will 
(rectitudo)  in  its  liberty,  and  this,  he  says,  has  remained  intact 
because  it  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  will  itself,  from  which  it  does 
not  differ.8  In  other  passages,  it  is  true,  he  speaks  of  "  wounds  "  ; 
for  owing  to  concupiscence  the  will  is  "  inconstant  and  change- 
able "  ;  but  he  nevertheless  reverts  to  "  rectitudo,"  erroneously 
relegating  the  results  of  original  sin  to  the  lower  powers  alone. 
Following  Occam,  and  against  St.  Thomas  and  Scotus,  he  makes 
of  concupiscence  a  "  qualitas,"  viz.  a  "  qualitas  corporalis."3 
Again,  following  his  master  and  d'Ailly,  Biel  asserts — and  this 
is  real  Occamism — that  the  will  is  able  without  grace  to  follow 
the  dictates  of  right  reason  (" dictamen  rectce  rationis")  in  every- 
thing, and  is  therefore  able  of  itself  to  keep  the  whole  law  of 
nature,  even  to  love  God  purely  and  above  all  things.*  An 
example  of  how  inaccurate  Biel  is  in  the  details  of  his  theological 
discussions  has  been  pointed  out  by  Denifle,  who  shows  that  in 
quoting  three  various  opinions  of  the  greater  Scholastics  on  a 
question  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  ("  utrum  peccatum  originate 
sit  aliquid  positivum  in  anima  vel  in  carne  ")  "  not  one  of  the 
opinions  is  correctly  given,"  and  yet  this  "  superficial  and  wordy 

Christian  view  of  the  Redemption  by  grace."  Revelation  was  to  him 
merely  a  "  collection  of  unreasonable  doctrines,"  and  the  Bible  a 
"  chance  jumble  of  unreasonable  Divine  oracles."  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  he  always  recognised  in  the  teaching  of  the  Church  the  correct 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  was  under  the  impression  that  his 
teaching  on  the  Redemption  was  conformable  with  the  Church's  in- 
terpretation. We  are  also  told  that  he  always  restricted  infallibility  to 
Holy  Scripture,  denying  it  to  the  Councils;  that,  with  regard  to  the 
doctrine  of  grace,  he  assailed  the  teaching  of  the  Schoolmen  according 
to  which  grace  was  to  be  considered  as  "  Divine  matter."  and  took 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  to  mean  merely  the  non-imputation  of  sin  ; 
that  Luther's  proofs  of  the  omnipresence  of  the  body  of  Christ  had 
been  anticipated  by  Occam,  and  that,  in  the  same  way,  his  teaching 
with  regard  to  the  right  of  worldly  authorities  to  reform  the  Church 
was  also  to  be  found  in  Occam.  As  regards  Occam's  ecclesiastico- 
political  ideas  it  is  quite  true  they  pervade  Luther's  theses,  never- 
theless Occam's  erroneous  doctrines  on  the  constitution  of  the  Church 
were  not  studied  in  the  schools  through  which  Luther  had  passed,  but 
only  those  on  Scholasticism :  they  are  also  never  quoted  by  Luther 
in  defence  of  his  teaching. 

1  Sess.,  vi.;  c.  1. 

2  Cp.  p.  140,  note,  where  :  "Rectitudo  naluralis  voluntatis  est  liberias 
voluntatis,"  etc.,  precedes  the  first  words  quoted; 

3  "  Qualitas  corporalis  inclinans  appetitum  sensitivum,"  etc.,  and 
"  qualitas  carnis  inordinata  inclinans,"  etc.     In  2  Sent.,  q.   26  ;    in 
3  Sent.,  q.  2  ;   Quodlib.,  3,  q.  10  ;   Denifle,  I1,  p.  843. 

*  In  3  Sent.,  dist.  27,  art.  3,  quoted  further  on  p.  155,  n.  1.     Cp. 
Denifle- Weiss,  I2,  p.  535,  n.  4.  and  p.  536  ff. 


142  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

author  was  one  of  Luther's  principal  sources  of  information 
regarding  the  best  period  of  Scholasticism."1 

The  Nominalists  doubtless  recognised  the  supernatural  order 
as  distinct  from  the  natural,  and  Occam  as  well  as  Biel,  d'Ailly 
and  Gerson  do  not  here  differ  materially  from  the  rest  of  the 
Scholastics  ;  but  the  limits  of  natural  ability,  more  particularly 
in  respect  of  keeping  the  commandments  and  loving  God  above 
all,  are  carried  too  far.  Luther's  masters  had  here  insisted  with 
great  emphasis  on  the  argument  of  Scotus  which  they  frequently 
and  erroneously  made  to  prove  even  more  than  was  intended, 
viz.  that  as  reason  is  capable  of  realising  that  man  is  able  to 
fulfil  the  law  and  to  render  such  love,  and  as  the  will  is  in  a 
position  to  carry  out  all  that  reason  puts  before  it,  therefore  man 
is  able  to  fulfil  both  requirements. 2  In  this  argument  insufficient 
attention  has  been  paid  to  the  difficulties  which  interior  and 
exterior  circumstances  place  in  the  way  of  fallen  man.  Theo- 
logians generally  were  very  much  divided  in  opinion  concerning 
the  possibility  of  fulfilling  these  requirements,  and  the  better 
class  of  Scholastics  denied  it,  declaring  that  the  assistance  of 
actual  grace  was  requisite,  which,  however,  they  held,  was  given 
to  all  men  of  good  will.  Against  the  doctrine  which  Biel  made  his 
own,  that  man  is  able,  without  grace,  to  avoid  all  mortal  sin,3 
keep  all  the  commandments  and  love  God  above  all  things, 
not  only  Thomists,  but  even  some  of  the  Nominalists  protested.4 

Here  again,  according  to  Denifle,  a  serious  error,  committed 
by  Biel  regarding  St.  Thomas,  must  be  pointed  out,  one,  too, 
which  may  have  had  its  effect  upon  Luther.  Biel  erroneously 
makes  the  holy  Doctor  say  the  opposite  of  what  he  really  teaches 
when  he  ascribes  to  him  the  proposition  :  "  Homo  potest  cavere 
peccata  mortalia  [omnia]  sine  gratia."  As  Denifle  reminds  us 
again,  it  was  "  from  this  author  that  Luther  drew  in  great  part 
his  knowledge  of  the  earlier  Scholastics."5  Biel,  however,  in  his 
sermons  and  instructions  to  preachers  restricts  the  thesis  of  the 
possibility  of  loving  God  above  all  things  through  our  natural 
powers.  This,  man  is  able  to  do,  he  says,  "  according  to  some 
writers,  more  especially  in  the  state  of  paradisiacal  innocence, 
but  the  act  is  not  so  perfect  and  not  so  easy  as  with  God's  grace 
and  is  without  supernatural  merit.  God  has  so  ordained  that  He 
will  not  accept  any  act  as  meritorious  for  heaven  excepting  only 
that  which  is  elicited  by  grace  "  ("  ex  gratia  elicitum  ").6 

1  Denifle,  I1,  p.  843  f. 

2  Occam,  1  Sent.,  dist.  1,  q.  2,  concl.  1  :    "  Voluntas  potest  se  con- 
formare  dictamini  rationis,"  etc. 

3  2  Sent.,  dist.  28  (Brix.  ed.),  fol.  143'. 

4  Cp.  Denifle,  I1,  p.  527,  n.  3,  p.  521. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  522,  n.  2. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  541,  n.  1.  In  spite  of  this,  the  teaching  of  the  much-used 
Commentary  on  the  Sentences  continued  to  make  itself  felt,  more 
particularly  as  the  author  enjoyed  great  consideration  among  the 
ecclesiastically  minded,  represented  Nominalism  at  Tubingen,  and 
was  honoured  as  "  the  last  of  the  Scholastics."  It  is  worth  while  to 
quote  the  points  of  his  teaching  on  grace  from  his  book  on  the  Sentences 


The  views  of  the  Occamists  or  "  Moderns "  exhibited  yet 
other  weak  points.  Man,  so  they  taught,  is  able  to  merit  grace 
"  de  congruo."  They  admitted,  it  is  true,  that  grace  was  a 
supernatural  gift,  "  donata  "  and  "  gratuita,"  as  they  termed  it, 
but  they  saw  in  man's  natural  love  of  God,  and  in  his  efforts,  an 
adequate  disposition  for  arriving  at  the  state  of  saving  grace.1 
The  great  Schoolmen  on  the  contrary  taught  with  St.  Thomas, 
that  the  preparation  and  disposition  for  saving  grace,  i.e.  all 
those  good  works  which  precede  justification,  do  not  originate  in 
us  but  are  due  to  the  grace  of  Christ. 

As  for  the  teaching  regarding  natural  and  supernatural  love 
of  God,  the  keeping  of  the  commandments  and  the  predisposition 
for  grace,  Luther,  in  1516,  appears  to  have  scarcely  been  ac- 
quainted with  the  opinion  of  any  of  the  better  representatives  of 
Scholasticism,  to  whom  he  had  access.  It  was  only  in  1518  that 
his  attention  was  directed  to  Gregory  of  Rimini  (General  ot  the 
Augustinian  Hermits  in  1357),  an  eclectic  whose  views  were 
somewhat  unusual,  and  in  this  case,  Luther,  instead  of  making 
use  of  the  good  which  was  to  be  found  in  him  in  abundance, 
preferred  to  disregard  his  real  opinion  and  to  set  him  up  as 
opposed  to  the  teaching  of  the  Schoolmen.2  In  1519,  labouring 
under  a  total  misapprehension  of  the  truth  as  regards  both 
Gregory  and  the  Schoolmen,  he  wrote  :  "  the  '  Moderns  '  agree 
with  the  Scotists  and  Thomists  concerning  free  will  and  grace, 
with  the  one  exception  of  Gregory  of  Rimini,  whom  they  all 
condemn,  but  who  rightly  and  effectively  proves  them  to  be 
worse  than  the  Pelagians.  He  alone  among  all  the  Scholastics 

with  the  glosses  which  Biel  does  not  forget  to  mention.  The  principal 
passage  is  in  3  Sent.,  dist.  27,  art.  3,  dub.  2  to  Q  (according  to  the 
Lyons  edition  of  1514).  Among  the  five  propositions  there  set  up, 
"  post.  Domn.  Pe.  de  Aliaco  "  (d'Ailly),  the  first  teaches  the  possibility 
of  an  act  of  love  of  God  "  ex  naturalibu*."  This  is  the  reason  :  "  omni 
dictamini  rationis  rectce  voluntas  ex  suis  naturalibus  potest  se  conformare." 
The  second  proposition,  however,  says  :  "  Talis  amoris  actus  non 
potest  stare  in  viatore  de  potentia  Dei  ordinata  sine  gratia  et  charitate 
infusa,"  owing  to  the  principle,  "  Facienti  quod  eat  in  se"  That  grace 
is  every  moment  at  man's  disposal  is  proved  from  many  Bible  passages, 
yet  any  other  more  perfect  disposition  for  grace  than  the  natural  act 
of  love  of  God  is  not  possible  to  man  ;  the  natural  act  in  relation  to 
grace  is,  however,  only  prior  "  notura,"  not  "  tempore.'"  The  third 
proposition  runs  :  "  Charitas  infusa  tamen  est  prior  in  meriti  ratione" 
etc.  The  fourth  :  with  this  natural  act  no  mortal  sins  can  exist. 
The  fifth  :  "  Stante  lege  [i.e.  prcesente  ordinatione  Dei]  nullus  homo 
per  pura  naturalia  potest  implere  prceceptum  de  dilectione  Dei  super 
omnia.  Probatur,  quia  lex  iubet,  quod  actus  cadens  sub  prcecepto  fiat 
in  gratia,  quce  est  habitus  supernaturalis." 

1  Biel,  in  2  Sent.,  dist.  28,  says  of  the  natural  love  of  God  :  "  Actus 
dilectionis  Dei  super  omnia  est  dispositio  ultimata  et  sufficiens  ad  gratia; 
infusionem.  .  .  .  Gratia  superadditur  tanquam  prcevice  dispositioni," 
etc.  But  ibid.,  fol.  143',  he  says  :  "  Sic  ad  prceparandum  se  ad  donum 
Dei  suscipiendum  non  indiget  alio  dono  gratice,  sed  Deo  ipsum  movente 
[sc.  concursu  generali]." 

*  Cp.  Denifle,  I1,  p.  542  f. 


144  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

agrees  with  Augustine  and  the  Apostle  Paul,  against  Carlstadt 
and  all  the  new  Schoolmen."1  As  though  all  Scholastics,  old 
and  new,  had  taught  what  Luther  here  attributes  to  them,  viz. 
that  "it  is  possible  to  gain  heaven  without  grace,"  because, 
according  to  them,  "  a  good  though  not  meritorious  work  can  be 
done  "  without  grace.  On  the  contrary,  not  the  Thomists  only, 
but  also  many  other  theologians  were  opposed  to  the  thesis  that 
the  will  could,  of  itself,  always  and  everywhere,  conform  itself  to 
the  dictates  of  right  reason  and  thus  arrive  at  grace,  but  Gregory 
of  Rimini,  whom  Luther  favours  so  much  as  a  Doctor  of  his  own 
Order,  declares  that  the  keeping  of  the  whole  law  was  only 
possible  through  grace,  and  that  therefore  God  had,  with  His 
law,  imposed  nothing  impossible  on  man.2  According  to  Luther, 
however,  God  had  demanded  of  human  nature  what  was  im- 
possible. 

Occam  and  his  school  deviate  somewhat  from  the  rest  of  the 
Scholastics  in  the  application  of  the  well-known  axiom  : 
"  Facienti  quod  est  in  se  Deus  non  denegat  gratiam."3 

While  the  better  class  of  Scholastics  understood  it  as  meaning 
that  God  allows  the  man  to  arrive  at  saving  grace  and  justifica- 
tion, who  does  his  part  with  the  help  of  actual  grace,  the  schools 
of  the  decline  interpreted  the  principle  as  implying  that  God 
would  always  give  saving  grace  where  there  was  adequate 
human  and  natural  preparation  ;  they  thus  came  to  make  this 
grace  a  mere  complement  of  man's  natural  effort ;  the  effect  of 
grace  was  accordingly  purely  formal  ;  man's  effort  remained  the 
same  as  before,  but,  by  an  act  of  favour,  it  was  made  conformable 
with  God's  "  intention  "  ;  for  it  was  God's  will  that  no  man 
should  enjoy  the  Beatific  Vision,  without  such  grace,  which, 
however,  He  never  failed  to  bestow  in  response  to  human  efforts. 
Some  modern  writers  have  described  this  view  of  grace  to  which 
the  Nominalists  were  inclined,  as  a  stamp  imprinting  on  purely 
human  effort  a  higher  value.  At  any  rate,  according  to  the 
Occamists,  man  prepares  for  grace  by  natural  acts  performed 
under  the  ordinary  concurrence  of  God  (concursus  generalis),* 
whereas,  according  to  the  better  Scholastics,  this  preparation 
demanded,  not  only  the  ordinary,  but  also  the  particular  con- 
currence of  God,  namely,  actual  grace  ;  they  maintained  that 
ordinary  concurrence  was  inadequate  because  it  belonged  to  the 
natural  order. 

Actual  grace  was  entirely  neglected  by  the  Occamists ;   the 

1  To  Spalatin,  August  15,   1519,  "  Brief wechsel,"  2,  p.  109  :    "  Is 
[Gregorius  Arimin crisis]  solus  inter  scholasticos  contra  omnes  scholasticos 
recentiores  cum  Carolostadio,  id  est  Augustino  et  apostolo  Paulo  con- 
sentit."     Cp.  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  84. 

2  In  2  Sent.,  fol.  91'  ad  2  (ed.  Venet.,  1503):  "Deus  non  prcecipit 
homini  ut  talia  opera  faciat  sine  auxilio  suo,"  etc. 

3  Cp.  the  scholastic  passages  in  Denifle,  I1,  p.  555,  n.  3.    He  leaves 
the  explanation  for  the  second  volume,  though  A.  Weiss  does  not  give 
it.     Denifle's  remarks  (p.  557  f.)  on  the  practical  application  of  the 
principle  "  Facienti  "  are  worthy  of  attention. 

*  Denifle,  I1,  p.  564. 


"THE  SCHOOLS  OF  THE  SOPHISTS"  145 

special  help  of  God  is,  according  to  most  of  them,  saving  grace 
itself  ;  actual  grace,  i.e.  the  divinely  infused  intermediary  between 
man's  natural  and  supernatural  life,  finds  no  place  in  their 
system.  This  explains,  if  we  may  anticipate  a  little,  how  it  is 
that  Luther  pays  so  little  attention  to  actual  grace  ;l  he  has  no 
need  of  it,  because  man,  according  to  him,  cannot  keep  the  law 
at  all  without  the  (imputed)  state  of  grace.  It  is  unfortunate 
that  Biel,  in  whom  Luther  trusted,  should  have  misrepresented 
the  actual  teaching  of  true  Scholasticism  concerning  the  necessity 
and  nature  of  grace,  whether  of  actual  or  saving  grace. 

As  early  as  1515  Luther,  with  the  insufficient  knowledge  he 
possessed,  accused  the  Scholastics  generally  of  teaching  that 
"  man  by  his  natural  powers  is  able  to  love  God  above  all  things, 
and  substantially  to  do  the  works  commanded,  though  not,  indeed, 
according  to  the  '  intention  '  of  the  lawgiver,  i.e.  not  in  the  state 
of  grace."  "  Therefore,  according  to  them,"  he  says,  "  grace 
was  not  necessary  save  by  a  new  imposition  demanding  more  than 
the  law  ('per  novam  exactionem  ultra  legem ') ;  for,  as  they  teach, 
the  law  is  fulfilled  by  our  own  strength.  Thus  grace  is  not 
necessary  to  fulfil  the  law,  save  by  reason  of  God's  new  exaction 
which  goes  beyond  the  law.  Who  will  put  up  with  these  sacri- 
legious views  ?  "  Assuredly  his  indignation  against  Scholasti- 
cism would  have  been  righteous  had  its  teaching  really  been  what 
he  imagined.  In  the  same  way,  and  with  similarly  strong  ex- 
pressions, he  generalises  what  he  had  learnt  in  his  narrow  world 
at  Erfurt  and  Wittenberg,  and  ascribes  to  the  whole  of  Christen- 
dom, to  the  Popes  and  all  the  schools,  exactly  what  the  Occamists 
said  of  the  results  of  original  sin  being  solely  confined  to  the 
lower  powers.  Here,  and  in  other  connections  too,  he  exclaims  : 
"  the  whole  Papacy  has  taught  this,  and  all  the  schools  of  Sophists 
[Scholastics]."  "Have  they  not  denied  that  nature  wras  ruined 
by  sin  when  they  assert  that  they  are  able  to  choose  what  is 
good  according  to  the  dictates  of  right  reason  ?  "2 

From  his  antagonism  to  such  views,  an  antagonism  we  find 
already  in  1515,  when  he  was  preparing  for  his  lectures  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  sprang  his  own  gloomy  doctrine  of  the 
death  of  free  will  for  good,  and  the  poisoning  of  human  nature  by 
original  sin.  With  its  first  appearance  in  the  lectures  mentioned 
we  shall  deal  later. 

1  Denifle,  1,  p.  670  f. 

2  "  Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  19,  p.  61  seq.     Such  views  have  often  been 
adopted    from    Luther    by    Protestant    theologians    and    historians. 
"  The  worth  of  Scholasticism,"  Denifle  complains,   I1,  p.   845,   "  i.e. 
the  scholastic  doctrine  as  ^misunderstood  and  misrepresented  by  them, 
is  judged  of  by  them  according  to  Luther's  erroneous  views  which  they 
receive  as  axioms,  first  principles  and  unalterable  truths."     In  the 
second  edition  A.  Weiss  has  struck  out  this  sentence.     Denifle,   I1, 
p.  840,  complains  with  reason  that  Biel  is  accepted  as  a  reliable  repre- 
sentative of  Scholasticism.     Cp.  p.   552,  n.   1,  after  showing  his  in- 
accuracy in  one  passage  :    "  The  reader  may  judge  for  himself  what 
a  false  impression  of  St.   Thomas's  teaching  would  be  gained  from 
Biel." 

I.— L 


146  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Here  a  more  general  question  must  first  receive  an  answer. 
How  came  the  youthful  Luther  to  absorb  into  his  life  the 
views  above  described  without  apparently  shrinking  in  the 
least  from  the  opposition  to  the  Church's  teaching  manifest 
in  them  ? 

Various  answers  are  forthcoming.  In  the  first  place, 
in  consequence  of  his  training  which  consisted  too  exclu- 
sively in  the  discussion  of  speculative  controversies,  he 
had  come  to  see  in  the  theological  doctrines  merely  opinions 
of  the  schools,  on  which  it  was  permissible  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment. He  had  forgotten  that  there  existed  a  positive  body 
of  unassailable  doctrine.  Even  when  engaged  in  mercilessly 
attacking  this  body  of  doctrine  he  still  appears  to  have 
been  unaware  of  having  outstepped  the  lines  of  permissible 
disputation.  We  cannot,  however,  altogether  exonerate 
him  from  being  in  some  degree  conscious  that  in  his  attack 
on  the  Church  he  was  treading  dangerous  ground.  In  the 
lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  he  goes  so  far  as  to 
declare,  that  the  Church  was  almost  destroyed  ("  pene 
subversa  ")  by  the  teaching  of  the  Scholastics,  and  that 
everything  was  full  of  Pelagian  errors,  because  grace  for 
the  support  of  the  will  had  been  abolished.  Things  such  as 
these  and  others  of  a  like  nature  he  could  assuredly  not  have 
uttered  without,  in  his  calmer  hours,  asking  himself  how 
he  could  reconcile  such  a  standpoint  with  his  duty  to  the 
Church.  It  is  true,  however,  that  such  quiet  hours  were 
exceptional  in  his  case.  There  can  be  no  doubt  also  that 
his  idea  of  the  Church  and  of  the  binding  character  of  her 
doctrine  was  confused.  In  1519  he  had  no  hesitation  in 
pointing  to  the  action  of  other  Doctors,  who,  before  that 
date,  had  engaged  in  controversy  with  each  other,  in  vindica- 
tion of  the  tremendous  struggle  he  had  just  commenced. 
I  am  only  doing  what  they  did  ;  "  Scotus,  single-handed, 
opposed  the  opinions  of  all  the  schools  and  Doctors  and 
gained  the  victory  (?).  Occam  did  the  same,  many  others 
have  done  and  are  doing  likewise  up  to  the  present 
day  (?).  If  then  these  are  at  liberty  to  withstand  all,  why 
not  I  ?  5?1 

1  In  the  "  Resolutiones  super  propositionibus  Lipsice  disputatis," 
concl.  1  ;  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  3,  p.  245  sq.  ;  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  403.  It 
is  of  interest  to  see  how  he  sums  up  his  desire  of  ridding  himself  of  the 
oppression  of  doctrinal  rules  in  the  cry  :  "  Volo  liber  ease."  Cp.  ibid., 
pp.  247,  404. 


OCCAMISM  AND   OBSERVANCE     147 

The  second  answer  to  the  above  question  lies  in  the 
outward  circumstances  existing  in  his  monastic  home  at  the 
time  of  the  beginning  of  his  struggle.  The  members  of  his 
Congregation,  most  of  whom  were  of  Occam's  school,  \vere 
still  greatly  excited  and  divided  by  the  quarrel  going  on  in 
their  midst  regarding  organisation  and  discipline.  The 
Observantines  with  their  praise  of  the  old  order  and  exer- 
cises were  a  thorn  in  the  flesh  of  the  other  Augustinians, 
more  lax  and  modern  in  their  views,  especially  for  Luther, 
who  was  at  their  head.  A  spirit  of  antagonism  existed  not 
merely  between  the  different  houses  of  the  Order,  but  even 
in  the  houses  themselves  a  struggle  seems  to  have  been 
carried  on.  On  the  one  side  there  was  a  tenacious  adherence 
to  the  older  practices  of  the  Order,  on  the  other  suspicion 
and  reproaches  were  levelled  against  the  innovations  of 
the  Observantines.  The  result  was  that  the  fiery  young 
Professor,  while  inveighing  against  the  Occam  ist  theory  of 
self-righteousness,  thundered  at  the  same  time  against  the 
Observantines  as  living  instances  of  the  self-righteous  and 
holy-by-works.  Some  of  the  reasons  for  this  supposition 
have  already  been  given,  and  more  will  be  forthcoming 
when  we  consider  the  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.1 

War  was  to  the  Wittenberg  Doctor  even  then  an  element 
of  life.  He  found  it  going  on,  and  encouraged  it  amongst 
the  wearers  of  the  Augustinian  habit.  The  first  and  second 
"  factions  "  in  the  Order,  as  Usingen  calls  them,  i.e.  the  first 
division  caused  by  the  question  of  observance,  and  the 
second  by  the  great  controversy  concerning  faith,  were, 
we  may  be  sure,  closely  allied  in  Luther's  mind  ;  the  con- 
troversy concerning  observance  may  assuredly  be  reckoned 
amongst  the  outward  causes  which  carried  him  along  with 
them  into  the  greater  struggle  and  contributed  for  a  time 
to  hide  from  him  the  danger  of  his  position.  Though  details 
are  lacking  of  the  resistance  to  Luther's  first  challenge  to 
the  theologians  of  his  Order,  to  Scholasticism  and  the 
Church's  doctrine,  yet,  as  already  said,  we  can  see  from 
the  Commentary  on  Romans,  from  other  unprinted  early 
lectures,  and  also  from  the  disputations  and  sermons,  that 
the  Order  continued  in  a  state  of  commotion,  and  that,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  second  "  faction  "  was  an  outgrowth 

1  See  above,  p.  39  ff.     Cp.  passages  quoted  below,  chapter  vi.  3. 


148  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

of  the  first.1  The  Observantines  had  to  put  up  with  hearing 
themselves  styled  by  Luther  "  iustitiarii  "  and  Pharisees  ; 
but  probably  there  were  others,  even  members  of  the  Witten- 
berg University,  perhaps  some  of  those  jurists  and  philoso- 
phers2 to  whom  he  refers  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans, 
and  whom  he  so  cordially  detested,  who  also  were  counted 
amongst  the  "  iustitiarii,"  in  fact  all  whom  the  outrageous 
assertions  of  their  young  colleague  regarding  the  observance 
of  precepts  and  regulations  and  against  human  freedom, 
roused  to  opposition. 

To  these  two  answers  a  third  must  be  added,  which 
turns  upon  the  character  of  Luther  in  his'  youth.  His 
extreme  self-sufficiency  blinded  him,  and  his  discovery  of  real 
errors  in  the  theology  in  which  he  had  been  trained  drove 
him  in  his  impetuosity  to  imagine  that  he  was  called,  and 
had  the  right,  to  introduce  an  entirely  new  theology.  His 
searching  glance  had  spied  out  real  mistakes  ;  his  strength 
and  boldness  had  resulted  in  the  bringing  to  light  of  actual 
abuses  ;  his  want  of  consideration  in  the  pointing  out  of 
blemishes  in  the  Church  had,  in  some  degree,  been  successful 
and  earned  for  him  the  applause  of  many  ;  his  criticism  of 
theology  was  greeted  as  triumphant  by  his  pupils,  the  more 
so  as  the  Doctors  he  attacked  were  but  feeble  men  unable 
to  reply  to  so  strong  an  indictment,  or  else  living  at  a  dis- 
tance (in  Erfurt).  The  growing  self-consciousness,  which 
expresses  itself  even  in  the  form  of  his  controversial  language, 
must  not  be  disregarded  as  a  psychological  fact  in  the  problem, 
one,  too,  which  also  helped  to  blind  him  to  the  real  outcome 
of  his  work. 

Only  the  most  extreme  spirit  of  antagonism  could  have 
led  the  Monk  to  make,  in  addition  to  his  other  harsh  ex- 
aggerated charges  against  Scholasticism,  the  following 
assertion,  to  which,  as  it  is  important  for  the  origin  of 
Lutheranism,  some  attention  must  be  paid.  He  says  the 
doctrine  is  false  that  righteousness  which  can  be  acquired 

1  See   above,  p    80.     According  to  Usingen  the  "  primaria  factio 
nostrce  unionis  "  (i.e.  of  the  Saxon  Congr.  of  Augustinians)  was  that 
which    Lang    led    astray    "  contra   nativum   conventum   suum."      The 
"  secundaria  factio"    was   the   Reformation    "qua   pcene   desolata   est 
nostra  unio."     See  Usingen,  "  Sermo  de  S.  cruce  "  (Erfordiae,  1524)  ; 
N.  Paulus,  Usingen,  p.  16,  n.  5. 

2  Cp.  Pollich.  in  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  87.    See  above,  p.  86. 


LAWYERS'   RIGHTEOUSNESS       149 

by  means  of  good  works  (of  the  natural  order)  is  even 
conceivable  ;  this  was  invented  by  Aristotle ;  this  righteous- 
ness of  the  philosophers  and  jurists  has  penetrated  into  the 
Church,  while,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  owing  to  the  naughtiness, 
nay,  corruption  of  mankind,  resulting  from  original  sin, 
it  was  a  monstrosity  and  an  abomination  in  God's  sight ; 
the  scholastic  distinctions  of  distributive  and  commutative 
justice,  etc.,  "  were  also  due  to  blindness  of  spirit  and  mere 
human  wisdom  "  ;  the  Scholastics  have  put  this  infamous, 
purely  human  righteousness  in  the  place  of  righteousness  by 
grace,  which  is  of  value  in  God's  sight ;  they  have  said  there 
is  no  original  sin,  and  have  acted  as  though  all  men  did  not 
feel  concupiscence  within  themselves  very  strongly  ;  they 
have  represented  righteousness  as  the  fruit  of  our  natural 
efforts,  and  in  consequence  of  this  people  now  believe  that 
righteousness  may  be  had  through  Indulgences  costing 
two  pence,  i.e.  through  works  of  the  very  slightest  worth  ! 
But  "  the  Apostle  teaches,"  he  says,  "  Corde  creditur  ad 
iustitiam,  i.e.  not  by  works,  or  wisdom,  or  study,  not  by 
riches  and  honours  can  man  attain  to  righteousness.  .  .  . 
That  is  a  new  way  to  righteousness,  against,  and  far  above, 
Aristotle  .  .  .  and  his  political,  God-forsaken  righteous- 
ness."1 Yet,  according  to  him,  the  Scholastics  knew  no 
better.  "  They  speak  like  Aristotle  in  his  '  Ethics,'  who 
makes  .  .  .  righteousness  consist  in  works,  as  also  its 
attainment  and  its  loss."2 

Is  it  possible  that  the  writer  of  the  above  sentences  was  really 
incapable  of  distinguishing  between  the  natural  and  the  super- 
natural in  moral  good  according  to  the  fundamental  principle 
of  true  Scholasticism  ?  Was  Luther  really  ignorant  of  the  theses 
which  run  through  the  whole  of  Scholasticism  such  as  this  of 
St.  Thomas  :  "  Donum  gratice  excedit  omnem  prceparationem 
virtutis  humance  "  ?3  The  great  lack  of  discrimination  which 
underlies  the  above  attack  is  characteristic  of  Luther  in  his 
youth  and  of  his  want  of  consideration  in  the  standpoint  he 
assumed.  He  starts  from  some  justifiable  objection  to  the 
nominalistic  theology — which  really  was  inadequate  on  the 
subject  of  the  preparation  for  supernatural  righteousness — sets 
up  against  it  his  own  doctrine  of  fallen  man  and  his  salvation, 
and,  then,  without  further  ado,  ascribes  an  absolutely  fanciful 
idea  of  righteousness  to  the  Church  and  the  whole  of  Scholasti- 

1  Fol.  233'.  Denifle- Weiss,  I2,  p.  528,  n.  1  ;   "  Rom.  Schol.,"  p.  244. 

2  Fol.  144.     Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  526,  n.  3  ;    "  Rom.  Schol,"  p.  108. 

3  1-2,  q.  112,  a.  3. 


150  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

cism.  What  he  failed  to  distinguish,  St.  Thomas,  Thomism,  and 
all  true  Scholastics  distinguished  with  very  great  clearness. 
Aquinas  draws  a  sharp  line  of  demarcation  between  the  civil 
virtue  of  righteousness  and  the  so-called  infused  righteousness 
of  the  act  of  justification.  He  anticipates,  so  to  speak,  Luther's 
objection  and  his  confusion  of  one  idea  with  another,  and  teaches 
that  by  the  repeated  performance  of  exterior  works  an  inward 
habit  is  without  doubt  formed  in  consequence  of  which  man  is 
better  disposed  to  act  rightly,  as  Aristotle  teaches  in  his  "  Ethics  "; 
"  but,"  he  says,  "  this  only  holds  good  of  human  righteousness, 
by  which  man  is  disposed  to  what  is  humanly  good  ( '  iustitia 
humana  ad  bonum  humanum  ')  ;  by  human  works  the  habit  of 
such  righteousness  can  be  acquired.  But  the  righteousness 
which  counts  in  the  eyes  of  God  (i.e.  supernatural  righteousness) 
is  ordained  to  the  Divine  good,  namely,  to  future  glory,  which 
exceeds  human  strength  ( '  iustitia  quce  habet  gloriam  apud  Deum  ; 
ordinata  ad  bonum  divinum  ' )  .  .  .  wherefore  man's  works  are 
of  no  value  for  producing  the  habit  of  this  righteousness,  but 
the  heart  of  man  must  first  of  all  be  inwardly  justified  by  God, 
so  that  he  may  do  the  works  which  are  of  worth  for  eternal 
glory."1 

So  speaks  the  most  eminent  of  the  Schoolmen  in  the  name  of 
the  true  theology  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

For  Luther,  who  brings  forward  the  above  arbitrary  objection 
in  his  Commentary  on  Romans,  it  would  have  been  very  easy  to 
have  made  use  of  the  explanation  just  given,  for  it  is  found  in 
St.  Thomas's  Commentary  on  this  very  Epistle.  Luther,  one 
would  have  thought,  would  certainly  have  consulted  this  work 
for  his  interpretation  of  the  Epistle,  were  it  only  on  account  of 
its  historical  interest,  and  even  if  it  had  not  been  the  best  work 
on  the  subject  which  had  so  far  appeared.  But  no,  it  seems  that 
he  never  looked  into  this  Commentary,  nor  even  into  the  older 
glosses  of  Peter  Lombard  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  then 
much  in  use ;  in  the  latter  he  would  at  once  have  found  the 
refutation  of  the  charge  he  brought  against  the  Scholastics  of 
advocating  the  doctrine  of  Aristotle  on  righteousness  by  works, 
as  the  gloss  to  the  classic  passage  (Romans  iii.  27)  runs  as 
follows  :  "  For  righteousness  is  not  by  works  ('  non  ex  operibus 
est  iustitia  '),  but  works  are  the  result  of  righteousness,  and  there- 
fore we  do  not  say  :  '  the  righteousness  of  works,  but  the  works 
of  righteousness.'  "2 

He  does  not  even  trouble  to  uphold  the  frivolous  accusation 
that  the  Schoolmen  had  been  acquainted  only  with  Aristotelian 
righteousness,  but  actually  refutes  it  by  another  objection.  He 
finds  fault  with  the  "  scholastic  theologians  "  for  having,  as  he 

1  S.  Thorn.,  "  in  Ep.  ad  Romanes,"  lect.  1  (on  Rom.  iv.  2). 

2  In  Rom.  iii.  27  :    "  Non  enim  ex   operibus  est  iustitia,  sed   ipsa 
aunt  ex  iustitia  (see   in  this  connection    Luther's  statement,   p.    43) 
ideoque  non  iustitiam  operum  sed  opera  iustitice  dicimus."    Cp.  Denifle- 
Weiss,  I2,  pp.  528-30. 


151 

says  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans,  "  held  the  doctrine  of  the 
expulsion  of  sin  and  the  infusion  of  grace  "  to  be  a  single  change.1 
He  hereby  admits  that  they  were  familiar  with  something  more 
than  mere  Aristotelian  righteousness,  for  in  Aristotle  there  is 
certainly  no  question  of  any  infusion  of  grace.  But  Luther 
frequently  speaks  in  this  way  of  the  distinction  which  the 
Scholastics  made  between  acquired  and  infused  righteousness. 

The  changcableness  and  inconstancy  of  his  assertions 
regarding  the  doctrines  of  the  Scholastics  is  quite  remark- 
able. He  makes  no  difficulty  about  admitting  later,  against 
his  previous  statements,  that  the  Scholastics  did  not  teach 
that  man  was  able  to  love  God  above  all  things  merely  by 
his  own  strength  ;  this  was  the  teaching  only  of  the  Scotists 
and  the  "  Moderns  "  (i.e.  Nominalists  or  Occamists).2  At 
that  time  he  was  perhaps  better  acquainted  with  Biel, 
who  instances  Thomas  and  Bonaventure  in  opposition 
to  this  doctrine.3  Luther  was  also  careless  in  the  accounts 
he  gave  even  of  the  theology  of  his  own  circle,  viz.  that  of 
the  Occamists,  and  the  injustice  he  does  Scholasticism  as 
a  whole,  he  repeats  against  his  own  school  by  exaggerating 
its  faults  or  suppressing  the  necessary  distinctions  in  order 
to  be  the  better  able  to  refute  its  theses  by  the  Bible  and 
St.  Augustine.  As  therefore  it  is  impossible  to  form  an 
opinion  on  Scholasticism  as  a  whole  from  Luther's  assertions, 
so  we  cannot  trust  his  account  even  of  his  own  masters, 
in  whose  works  he  thinks  himself  so  well  versed. 

He  is,  for  instance,  neglecting  a  distinction  when  he  repeatedly 
asserts  that  Occam,  his  "  Master,"  denied  the  biblical  truth 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  necessary  for  the  performance  of  a  good 
work.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Occamists,  like  the  Scotists,  did 
not  here  differ  essentially  from  the  Thomists,  although  differences 
are  apparent  in  their  teaching  on  the  supernatural  habit,  and  on 
the  preparation  for  the  attainment  of  this  supernatural  righteous- 
ness, i.e.  for  justification.4  He  is  wronging  his  own  "factio 
occamica "  when,  from  its  teaching  that  man  could,  by  his 
natural  powers,  acquire  a  love  of  God  beyond  all  things,  he  at 

1  Fol.   158.    Denifle-Weiss,  lz,  p.  531,  n.   1,  2 ;     "  Bom.   Schol.," 
p.    130  :     "  Hoc  totum  scholastici  theologi  unam  dicunt  mutationem : 
expulsionem  peccati  et  infusionem  gratice." 

2  See  Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  542  ff. 

3  Denifle,  I1,  p.  520,  n.  1. 

4  On  Occam's  teaching  on  the  supernatural  habit  see  below,  p.  154. 
Occam,  2  Sent.,  q.  26,  says,  it  seems  "  quod  iustitia  originates  dicat 
aliquid   absolutum  superadditum  puris  naturalibus."      Biel  speaks,    2 
Sent.,  dist.  30,  q.  1,  concl.  3,  of  the  "  donum  supernaturale." 


152          LUTHER  THE  MONK 

once  infers  that  it  declared  infused  grace  to  be  superfluous,1 
and  further,  when,  for  instance,  he  asserted  that  the  axiom 
quoted  above,  and  peculiarly  beloved  of  the  Occamists,  "  Facienti 
quod  est  in  be  Deus  non  denegat  gratiam,"  was  erroneous,  as 
though  it  placed  a  "  wall  of  iron  "  between  man  and  the  grace  of 
God.2  No  Occamist  understood  the  axiom  in  the  way  he  wishes 
to  make  out. 

Luther  went  so  far  in  his  gainsaying  of  the  Occamist 
doctrine  of  the  almost  unimpaired  ability  of  man  for  purely 
natural  good,  that  he  arrived  at  the  opposite  pole  and 
began  to  maintain  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  vitally 
good  acts  on  man's  part ;  that  man  as  man  does  not  act  in 
doing  what  is  good,  but  that  grace  alone  does  everything. 
The  oldest  statements  of  this  sort  are  reserved  for  the 
quotations  to  be  given  below  from  his  Commentary  on 
Romans.  We  give,  however,  a  few  of  his  later  utterances 
to  this  effect.  They  prove  that  the  crass  denial  of  man's 
doing  anything  good  continued  to  characterise  him  in  later 
life  as  much  as  earlier. 

In  the  Gospel-homilies  contained  in  his  "Postils,"  he  teaches 
the  people  that  it  was  a  "  shameful  doctrine  of  the  Popes, 
universities,  and  monasteries  "  to  say  "  we  ought  by  the  strength 
of  our  free  will  to  begin  [exclusive  of  God's  help  ?]  by  seeking 
God,  coming  to  Him,  running  after  Him  and  earning  His  grace." 
"  Beware,  beware,"  he  cries,  "  of  this  poison  ;  it  is  the  merest 
devil's  doctrine  by  which  the  whole  world  is  led  astray.  .  .  . 
You  ask  :  How  then  must  we  begin  to  become  pious,  and  what 
must  we  do  that  God  may  begin  in  us  ?  Reply  :  What,  don't 
you  hear  that  in  you  there  is  no  doing,  no  beginning  to  be  pious, 
as  little  as  there  is  any  continuing  and  ending  ?  God  only  is  the 
beginning,  furthering  and  ending.  All  that  you  begin  is  sin  and 
remains  sin,  let  it  look  as  pretty  as  it  will ;  you  can  do  nothing 
but  sin,  do  how  you  will  .  .  .  you  must  remain  in  sin,  do  what 
you  will,  and  all  is  sin  whatever  you  do  alone  of  your  free 
will ;  for  if  you  were  able  of  your  own  free  will  not  to  sin, 
or  to  do  what  is  pleasing  to  God,  of  what  use  would  Christ  be 
to  you  ?  "3 

Elsewhere,  on  account  of  the  supposed  inability  of  man,  he 
teaches  a  sort  of  Quietism  :  "Is  anyone  to  become  converted, 
pious  and  a  Christian,  we  don't  set  about  it ;  no  praying,  no 
fasting  assists  it ;  it  must  come  from  heaven  and  from  grace 
alone.  .  .  .  Whoever  wants  to  become  pious,  let  him  not  say  : 
'  I  will  set  about  doing  good  works  in  order  to  obtain  grace,'  but, 

1  Cp.  in  Gal.  1,  p.  188  seq. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  272. 
8  Erl.  ed.,  102,  p.  11. 


CONCURRENCE   AND   GRACE       153 

1 1  will  wait  to  see  whether  God  by  His  word  will  give  me  His 
grace  and  His  spirit.'  "l 

And  on  another  occasion  his  words  are  still  stronger  :  "  The 
gospel  tells  us  only  to  open  our  bosom  and  take,  and  says  : 
'  Behold  what  God  has  done  for  you,  He  made  His  Son  become 
flesh  for  you.'  Believe  this  and  accept  it  and  you  will  be  saved."2 

Seen  in  the  light  of  such  passages,  it  becomes  clear  that  the 
following  must  not  be  taken  as  a  mere  expression  of  humility, 
but  as  a  deprecation  of  good  deeds.  Already,  in  1519,  Luther 
says  :  "  Man,  like  a  cripple  with  disabled  hands  and  feet, 
must  invoke  grace  as  the  artisan  of  works  ('  operum  arti- 
ficem  !)."3  The  difficulty  is  that  this  very  invocation  is 
itself  a  vital,  though  surely  not  a  sinful,  action.  Would  not 
a  man  have  been  justified  in  saying  even  of  this  preliminary 
act :  I  will  wrait,  I  may  not  begin  ?  "  Luther  was  scarcely 
acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of  a  wholesome  Scholasticism 
and  with  that  of  the  Church  concerning  the  mysterious 
reciprocal  action  of  grace  and  free  will  in  man.  He  was 
qualified  to  oppose  the  Occamist  teaching,  but  was  incapable 
of  replacing  it  by  the  true  doctrine."4 

Against  the  prevalent  doctrine  on  the  powers  of  man,  Luther, 
among  other  verses  from  the  Bible,  brought  forward  John  xv.  5  : 
"  Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing."  A  remark  on  his  use  of  this 
supposed  scriptural  proof  may  serve  to  conclude  what  we  have 
said  of  the  far-reaching  negative  influence  of  Occamism  on  the 
youthful  Luther. 

The  decisive  words  of  the  Redeemer  :  "  Without  me  ye  can  do 
nothing,"  so  Luther  says  to  his  friend  Spalatin,  had  hitherto  been 
understood  quite  wrongly.  And,  in  proof  of  this,  he  adduces  the 
interpretation  which  he  must  have  heard  in  his  school,  or  read 
in  the  authors  who  were  there  in  repute  :  "  Our  masters,"  he 
says,  "  have  made  a  distinction  between  the  general  and  the 
particular  concurrence  of  God  "  (concursus  generalis  and  con- 
cursus  specialis  or  gratia)  ;  with  the  general  concurrence  man 
was  able,  so  they  taught,  to  do  what  is  naturally  good,  i.e.  what 
they  considered  to  be  good  ;  with  the  particular,  however,  that 
which  is  beyond  nature  ("  quce  gratice  sunt  et  supra  naturam  "), 
and  meritorious  for  heaven.  To  this  statement  of  the  perfectly 
correct  teaching  of  his  masters  he  adds,  however,  the  following  : 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  24,  p.  244,  in  1527. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  4. 

3  Ibid.,  2,  p.  420. 

4  Denifle,  I1,  p.  561.     In  spite  of  this,  some  Protestant  critics  are 
under   the   impression   that   Denifle  has  made   of  Luther  a   faithful 
follower  of  Occam  and  that  he  "  gives  him  short  shrift  as  a  confirmed 
Occamist." 


154  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

they  taught  that  "  with  our  powers  we  are  able,  under  the 
general  Divine  concurrence,  to  prepare  ourselves  for  the  obtaining 
of  grace,  i.e.  for  the  obtaining  of  the  particular  concurrence, 
hence  that  we  can  '  inchoative  '  do  something,  to  gain  merit  and  the 
vision  of  God,  notwithstanding  the  express  teaching  of  Christ, 
though  we  are  indeed  unable  to  do  this  '  perfective,'  without  the 
particular  assistance  of  grace."1 

What  Luther  says  here  applies  at  most  to  the  Nominalists  ; 
according  to  Occam's  school  the  preparation  for  sanctifying 
grace  takes  place  by  purely  natural  acts,2  and  accordingly  this 
school  was  not  disposed  to  take  Christ's  words  about  eternal  life 
too  literally.  Although  healthy  Scholasticism  knows  nothing  of 
this  and  holds  fast  to  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words  "Without 
me  ye  can  do  nothing,"  viz.  nothing  for  eternal  life  (the  absolute 
necessity  of  the  general  concurrence  is  taken  for  granted), 
yet  Luther,  in  all  simplicity,  assures  his  friend  that  the  whole 
past  had  taken  the  words  of  Christ  in  the  sense  he  mentions 
("  Sic  est  hucusque  autoritas  ista  exposita  et  intellecta." )3  This 
doctrine  he  detests  so  heartily,  that  he  sets  up  the  very  extreme 
opposite  in  his  new  system.  The  general  Divine  concursus,  he 
says  in  his  letter  to  Spalatin  quoted  above,  certainly  leads  nature 
on  to  work  of  itself,  but  it  cannot  do  otherwise  than  "  seek  its 
own  and  misuse  the  gifts  of  God."  Nature  merely  provides  stuff 
for  the  "  punishing  fire,"  however  "  good  and  moral  its  works 
may  appear  outwardly."  Hence,  according  to  him,  there  is  no 
distinction  between  general  and  particular  concurrence,  between 
the  inchoative  and  the  perfective  act  ;  without  Christ,  and 
"  before  we  have  been  healed  by  His  grace,"  there  is  absolutely 
nothing  but  mischief  and  sin. 

By  "  grace,"  here  and  elsewhere,  he  means  the  state  of 
justifying  grace.  Whereas  true  Scholasticism  recognises 
actual  grace,  which  assists  man  even  before  justification, 
this  is  as  good  as  excluded  by  Luther  already  in  the  be- 
ginning of  his  theological  change.  Why  ?  Partly  because 
he  cannot  make  use  of  it  as  he  refers  everything  to  justifying 
faith,  partly  because  the  Occamists,  his  masters,  erroneously 
reduced  the  particular  influence  of  God  almost  entirely  to 
sanctifying  grace,  and  neglected  or  denied  actual  grace. 

In  the  latter  respect  we  perceive  one  of  the  positive  effects 
of  Occamism  on  Luther.  This  leads  us  to  another  aspect 
of  the  present  theme. 

1  On  April  13,  1520,  "  Briefwechsel,"  2,  p.  379  f. 

2  Cp.  Denifle,  I1,  p.  564. 

3  Mathesius,    "  Tischreden  "    (ed.    Kroker),   p.    172.      "  Scholastica 
theologia  in  hoc  articulo  consentit,  hominem  ex  puris  naturalibus  posse 
mereri  gratiam  de  congruo."     Words  of  Luther  in  1540.     As  a  good 
Occamist  he  himself  had  taught  the  same  in  his  first  exposition  of  the 
Psalms.    See  above,  p.  75. 


3.  Positive  Influence  of  Occamism 

We  have  so  far  been  considering  the  precipitate  and 
excessive  antagonism  shown  at  an  early  date  by  Luther 
towards  the  school  of  Occam,  especially  towards  its 
anthropological  doctrines  ;  we  have  also  noted  its  influence 
on  his  new  heretical  principles,  particularly  on  his  denial 
of  man's  natural  ability  for  good.  Now  wre  must  turn  our 
attention  to  the  positive  influence  of  the  Occamist  teaching 
upon  his  new  line  of  thought,  for  Luther's  errors  are  to  be 
ascribed  not  only  to  the  negative,  but  also  to  the  positive 
effects  of  his  school. 

His  principal  dogma,  that  of  justification,  must  first  be 
taken  into  consideration. 

This  he  drew  up  entirely  on  the  lines  of  a  scheme  handed 
down  to  him  by  his  school.  It  is  no  uncommon  thing  to 
see  even  the  most  independent  and  active  minds  tearing 
themselves  away  from  a  traditional  train  of  thought  in  one 
particular,  and  yet  continuing  in  another  to  pursue  the 
accustomed  course,  so  great  is  the  power  which  a  custom 
acquired  at  school  possesses  over  the  intellect.  The  simi- 
larity existing  between  Luther's  and  Occam's  doctrine  of 
the  imputation  of  righteousness  isquite  remarkable.  Occam 
had  held  it,  at  least  as  possible,  that  a  righteousness  existed 
which  was  merely  imputed  ;  at  any  rate,  it  was  only  because 
God  so  willed  it  that  sanctifying  grace  was  necessary  in  the 
present  order  of  things.  He  and  his  school  had,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  no  clear  perception  of  the  supernatural  habit  as  a 
supernatural  principle  of  life  in  the  soul.  According  to  the 
Occamist  Peter  d'Ailly,  whom  Luther  repeatedly  quotes 
in  his  notes  on  Peter  Lombard,  reason  cannot  be  convinced 
of  the  necessity  of  the  supernatural  habit ;  all  that  this  is 
supposed  to  do  can  be  done  equally  well  by  a  naturally 
acquired  habit ;  an  unworthy  man  might  be  found  worthy 
of  eternal  life  without  any  actual  change  taking  place  in 
him  ;  only  owing  to  an  acceptation  on  God's  part  ("a  sola 
divina  acceptatione ")  does  the  soul  become  worthy  of 
eternal  life,  not  on  account  of  any  created  cause  (therefore 
not  on  account  of  love  and  grace).1  "  The  whole  work  of 

1  Cp.  the  passages  from  Occam,  d'Ailly  and  Biel  in  Denifle- Weiss, 
I2,  p.  591  ff.  To  the  texts  there  quoted  from  Occam  must  be  added 
those  from  3  Sent.,  q.  8,  A.,  where,  "  de  necessitate  habituum  super - 
naturalium,"  he  establishes  three  conclusions  :  1.  Their  necessity 


156  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

salvation  here  becomes  external ;  it  is  mechanical,  not 
organic."1 

If  Luther,  in  consequence  of  his  study  of  these  Occamist 
doctrines,  fell  into  error  regarding  the  supernatural,  the 
consequences  were  even  worse  when,  with  his  head  full 
of  such  Occamistic  ideas,  he  proceeded  to  expound  the 
most  difficult  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  with  their  dim  and 
mysterious  handling  of  grace,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to 
ponder  on  the  writings  of  St.  Augustine,2  that  deep-thinking 
Doctor  of  grace.  Such  studies  could  only  breed  fresh 
confusion  in  his  mind. 

cannot  be  proved  by  natural  reason.  2.  The  necessity  of  these  habits 
cannot  be  inferred  from  the  article  of  faith,  that  eternal  salvation  is 
bestowed  on  man  on  account  of  his  merits.  3.  We  can  in  addition  to 
each  supernatural  habit  possess  also  a  natural  one  corresponding  to 
it  and  which  impels  us  to  similar  acts.  Yet,  as  he  says  in  concluding, 
the  passage  1  Cor.  xiii.  13:  "  Nunc  autem  manc.nl  fides"  etc.,  teaches 
that  the  habits  exist  in  the  righteous  and  remain  in  the  next  life.  But 
at  the  letter  D  he  returns  to  the  subject  :  one  who  is  not  baptised  and 
receives  instruction  can  arrive  at  the  love  of  God  :  "  dilectio  non 
infusa,  igitur  acquisita  "  ;  the  acts  of  the  will  which  we  produce  are 
natural  ones,  therefore  the  habit  also  is  natural  which  they  induce  : 
"  non  obstante  quod  sit  in  voluntate  habitus  supernaturalis  propter 
auctoritatcm  [scripturce],  adhuc  oportet  ponere  habitum  naturaliter 
acquisitum."  Finally,  under  T,  after  again  recognising  the  "  fides 
infusa,  propter  auctorilatem  scriptures,"  yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he 
says,  though  the  habits  might  be  acquired  naturally,  they  are  fre- 
quently infused  by  God,  and  therefore  called  rightly  "  dona  Dei  " 
and  "  habitus  infusi."  The  same  habit,  however,  cannot  be  merely 
naturally  acquired,  but  also  as  such  "  habere  effectus  eiusdem  speciei 
vel  rationis  "  ;  the  supernatural  habits  might  nevertheless  appear 
absolutely  superfluous  ("  viderentur  totaliter  super fluere  ")  were  it 
not  for  biblical  authority  ;  "  non  sunt  ponendi  propter  aliquam  rationem 
evidentem."  Thus,  on  the  one  hand,  the  strongest  attempts  to  abolish 
the  habits,  and,  on  the  other,  a  holding  fast  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Bible.  Nothing  is  more  incorrect  than  to  accuse  Occam  of  a  simple 
surrender  of  the  supernatural  qualities  and  a  direct  destruction  of  the 
supernatural  order.  Even  the  index  to  Occam's  Commentary  on  the 
Sentences  shows  under  the  word  habitus  how  strictly  he  distinguishes 
between  habitus  infusus  and  habitus  acquisitus,  and  how  he  accepts 
both  and  teaches,  for  instance,  that  the  natural  habits  may  remain 
even  after  the  destruction  of  the  supernatural. 

1  See  Denifle- Weiss,  I2,  p.  594. 

2  In  Augustine  the  doctrine  of  imputation  does  not  appear.     Cp. 
Mausbach,  "Die  Ethik  des  hi.  Augustinus"  (1909),  2,  p.  187,  who, 
after  pointing  out  this  fact,  remarks  :    "  This  doctrine  of  imputation 
was  actually  set  up  by  Luther,  whose  mind  was  dominated  by  Nomi- 
nalism."    Luther  was  able  to  introduce  the  continuance  of  original 
sin  into  Augustine's  writings  only  by  forcing  their  meaning  (see  above, 
his  alteration  of  concupiscentia  into  peccatum,  p.  98).     From  the  stand- 
point of  the  continuance  of  original  sin  Luther,  already  in  his  Commen- 
tary on  Romans,  attacks  the  supernatural  habit  of  grace.    Cp.  Braun, 
"  Die  Bedeutung  der  Concupiscenz  bei  Luther,"  p.  310. 


DIRECT  INFLUENCE  OF  OCCAMISM  157 

The  result  was  as  follows  :  regarding  imputation,  i.e. 
one  of  the  foundations  of  his  theology,  Luther  quotes  Occam 
in  such  a  way  as  to  represent  him  as  teaching  as  a  fact  what 
he  merely  held  to  be  possible.  He  declares  sanctifying  grace 
to  be  not  merely  superfluous,  but  also  non-existent,  and 
erects  the  theory  of  Divine  acceptation  into  a  dogma.  This 
alone  would  be  sufficient  to  demonstrate  his  positive  depend- 
ence on  Occamism. 

The  theories  of  acceptation,  which  were  peculiar  to  the 
Occamists  and  which  Luther  took  over- — though  what  they 
called  by  this  name  he  prefers  to  call  imputation- — had  not 
only  met  with  approval,  but  had  also  been  widely  applied 
by  this  school. 

According  to  d'Ailly,  evil  is  not  evil  on  account  of  its  special 
nature,  but  only  because  God  forbids  it  ("  prcecise,  quia  lege 
prohibitum  ")  ;  a  law  or  rule  of  conduct  does  not  exist  by  nature, 
for  God  might  have  willed  otherwise  ("  potest  non  esse  lex  ")  ; 
He  has,  however,  decreed  it  in  the  present  order  of  things. 
Similar  views  appear  in  Luther's  Commentary  on  Romans,  where 
little  regard  is  paid  to  the  objective  foundation  of  the  moral  law. 1 

According  to  Occam,  God  acts  according  to  whim.  D'Ailly 
actually  discovers  in  him  the  view  that  it  is  not  impossible  to 
suppose  that  the  created  will  might  deserve  well  by  hating  God, 
because  God  might  conceivably  command  this.  In  Luther  we 
at  least  find  the  opinion  that  God  knows  of  no  grounds  for  His 
action  and  might  therefore  work  what  is  evil  in  man,  which  then, 
of  course,  would  not  be  evil  in  God  in  consequence  of  His  not 
imputing  it  to  Himself  as  such. 

The  Divine  imputation  or  pactum  plays  its  part  in  the  Occam- 
istic  sense  in  Luther's  earliest  theological  lectures  on  the  Psalms. 
"  Faith  and  Grace,"  he  there  says,  "  by  which  we  are  justified 
to-day,  would  not  justify  us  of  themselves  save  as  a  consequence 
of  the  '  pactum  Dei.'  "  In  the  same  place  he  teaches  that,  as  a 
result  of  such  an  "  agreement  and  promise,"  those  who,  before 
Christ,  fulfilled  the  law  according  to  the  letter,  acquired  a 
supernatural  merit  de  congruo.* 

Luther's  dependence  on  Occamism  caused  him,  as  Denifle 
expresses  it,  to  be  always  "  on  bad  terms  with  the  super- 
natural "  ;3  we  must  not,  however,  take  this  as  meaning  that 
Luther  did  not  do  his  best,  according  to  his  own  lights,  to  support 
and  to  encourage  faith  in  revelation,  both  in  himself  and  in 
others. 

We  shall  see  how  in  the  case  of  justification  he  regards 
faith,  and  then  his  particular  "  faith  only  "  as  the  one 

1  Cp.  Denifle- Weiss,  2,  p.  305,  n.  4. 

2  Cp.  Loofs,  "  Dogmengesch.,"  *,  p.  699. 

3  Denifle- Weiss,  I2,  p.  510. 


158  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

factor,  not,  however,  the  faith  which  is  animated  by  charity, 
and  this  because,  with  the  Occamists,  he  rejects  all  super- 
natural habits.  He  extols  the  value  of  faith  on  every  occasion 
at  the  expense  of  the  other  virtues.1 

The  positive  influence  of  Occam  on  Luther  is  also  to  be 
traced  in  the  domain  of  faith  and  knowledge.  Luther 
imagines  he  is  fortifying  faith  by  laying  stress  on  its  supposed 
opposition  to  reason,  a  tendency  which  is  manifest  already 
in  his  Commentary  on  Romans.  In  this  Occam  and  his 
school  were  his  models. 

The  saying  that  there  is  much  in  faith  which  is  "  plainly 
against  reason  and  the  contrary  of  which  is  established  by  faith  "2 
comes  from  d'Ailly.  Occam  found  the  arguments  for  the  exist- 
ence of  one  God  inadequate.3  Biel  has  not  so  much  to  say 
against  these  proofs,  but  he  does  hold  that  the  fact  that  one  only 
God  exists  is  a  matter  of  faith  not  capable  of  being  absolutely 
proved  by  reason.4 

Occam,  whom  Biel  praises  as  "  multum  clarus  et  latus,"  made 
faith  to  know  almost  everything,  but  the  results  achieved  by 
reason  to  be  few  and  unreliable.5  He  employed  the  function  of 
reason,  of  a  caustic  reason  to  boot,  in  order  to  raise  doubts,  or 
to  exercise  the  mind  at  the  expense  of  the  truths  of  revelation  ; 
yet  in  the  positive  recognition  of  articles  of  faith  he  allowed 
reason  to  recede  into  the  background.  In  any  case  he  prepared 
the  way  for  the  saying,  that  a  thing  may  be  false  in  theology 
and  yet  true  in  philosophy,  and  vice  versa,  a  proposition  con- 
demned at  the  5th  Lateran  Council  by  the  Constitution  Apostolici 
Regiminis  of  Leo  X. 6 

Luther  came  to  state  clearly  that  "  it  was  quite  false  to  say 
the  same  thing  was  true  in  philosophy  and  also  in  theology  " ; 
whoever  taught  this  was  fettering  the  articles  of  faith  "  as 
prisoners  to  the  judgment  of  reason."7  We  shall  have  to  speak 
later  of  many  examples  of  the  violent  and  hateful  language  with 
which  he  disparages  reason  in  favour  of  faith.  His  love  for  the 
Bible  at  an  early  period  strengthened  in  him  the  idea — one  which 
the  Occamists  often  advanced  in  the  course  of  the  dialectic 
criticism  to  which  they  subjected  the  truths  of  religion — that 
after  all,  the  decisions  of  faith  are  not  the  same  as  those  of  the 

1  Denifle- Weiss,  ibid.,  p.  606. 

2  In   2  Sent,   in  princ.  :     "  Multa,   quce  apparent  manifeste  contra 
rationem,  et  quorum  opposita  sunt  consona  fidei." 

3  Quodlib.  1,  q.  1  :    "  Non  potest  demonstrative  probari,  quod  tantum 
unus  est  Deus." 

4  1  Sent.,  dist.  2,  q.  10,  concl.  3,  F. 

5  Denifle- Weiss,  I2,  p.  608. 

6  Raynald.,  "Annal.,"  an.  1513,  n.  92  sq.  •    Mansi,  "Coll.  cone.," 
32,  p.  842  seq. 

7  Drews,     "  Disputationeii   Luthers,"    p    487,   No.    4-6,    from  the 
Disputation  on  January  11,  1539. 


DIRECT  INFLUENCE  OF  OCCAMISM  159 

mind,  and  that  we  must  make  the  best  of  this  fact.  Luther  even 
in  his  Commentary  on  Romans  is  ever  ready  to  decry  the  "wisdom 
of  the  flesh,"  which  is  there  described  as  constantly  interfering 
with  faith. 

The  union  of  faith  and  knowledge,  of  which  true  Scholasticism 
was  proud,  never  appealed  to  Luther. 

The  Occamists  had  also  been  before  him  in  attacking  Aristotle. 
The  fact  that  many  esteemed  this  philosopher  too  highly  gave 
rise  in  their  camp  to  bitter  and  exaggerated  criticism,  and  to 
excessive  abuse  of  the  Stagirite.  Against  the  blind  Aristotelians 
d'Ailly  had  already  written  somewhat  unkindly  :  "  In  philosophy, 
i.e.  in  the  teaching  of  Aristotle,  there  are  no,  or  but  few,  con- 
vincing proofs  .  .  .  we  must  call  the  philosophy  or  teaching  of 
Aristotle  an  opinion  rather  than  a  science."1  Gregory  of  Rimini, 
whom  Luther  made  use  of  and  who  was  not  ignorant  of  Occamism, 
says  that  Aristotle  had  shockingly  gone  astray  ("  turpissime 
errant  ")  on  many  points,  and,  in  some,  had  contradicted  himself. 

Such  were  the  minds  that  inspired  Luther  at  the  time 
when  he  was  already  making  for  a  theological  goal  different 
from  that  of  the  "  rationalists,"  wise  ones  of  this  world, 
and  loquacious  wiseacres,  as  he  calls  all  the  Scholastics 
indiscriminately  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans.  Wherever 
theology  has  made  a  right  and  moderate  use  of  philosophical 
proofs,  philosophy  has  always  shown  itself  as  the  ancilla 
theologies,  and  has  been  of  assistance  in  theological  develop- 
ment. After  expelling  reason  from  the  domain  of  super- 
natural knowledge  Luther  was  forced  to  fall  back  on  feeling 
and  inward  experience,  i.e.  on  elements,  which,  owing  to 
their  inconstancy  and  variability,  did  not  deserve  the  place 
he  gave  them.  This  was  as  harmful  to  faith  as  the  denial 
of  the  rights  of  reason. 

Gerson  had  lamented,  concerning  the  misuse  of  philoso- 
phical criticism  in  religious  matters,  that  the  methods  of 
the  Nominalists  made  faith  grow  cold,2  and  it  may  be  that 
Luther  had  experienced  these  effects  in  himself,  since,  in 
his  lectures  on  the  Psalms,  he  acknowledges  and  regrets 
the  cooling  of  his  life  of  faith.3  But,  surely,  in  the  same  way 
the  predominance  of  feeling  and  so-called  religious  experience 
was  also  to  be  regretted,  as  it  crippled  faith  and  deprived 
it  of  a  sure  guide. 

1  In  1  Sent.,  q.  3,  a.  3:   "nullce  vel  paucce  sunt  rationes  evidentes 
demonstratives  .  .  .  magis    opinio    quam   scientia,    et   idea    valde    sunt 
reprehensibiles  qui  nimis  tenaciter  adhcerent  auctoritati  Aristotelia." 

2  "  Superbia  scholasticos  a  pcenitentia  et  fide  viva  prcepedien*,"  etc. 
"  Opp."  (Antv.,  1706),  p.  90. 

3  See  above,  p.  70. 


160  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Staupitz  spoke  from  feeling  and  not  from  a  clear  perception 
of  facts  when,  in  his  admiration,  he  praised  Luther  as 
exalting  Christ  and  His  grace.  He  applauded  Luther,  as 
the  latter  says  "  at  the  outset  of  his  career  "  :  "  This 
pleases  me  in  your  teaching,  that  it  gives  honour  and  all  to 
God  alone  and  nothing  to  man.  We  cannot  ascribe  to  God 
sufficient  honour  and  goodness,  etc."1  Staupitz  sought  for 
enlightenment  in  a  certain  mysticism  akin  to  Quietism, 
instead  of  in  real  Scholasticism.  On  such  mystic  by-ways 
Luther  was  sure  to  fall  in  with  him,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  a  false  mysticism,  Luther  was  to 
denounce  "  rationalising  wisdom  "  and  to  speak  in  favour 
of  religious  feeling  even  more  strongly  than  he  had  done 
before. 

Under  the  influence  of  both  these  elements,  a  quietistic 
mysticism  and  an  antagonism  to  reason  in  matters  of  faith, 
his  scorn  for  all  natural  works  grew.  This  made  it  easier 
for  him  to  regard  the  natural  order  of  human  powers  as 
having  been  completely  upset  by  original  sin.  More  and 
more  he  comes  to  recognise  only  an  appearance  of  natural 
virtues  ;  to  consider  them  as  the  poisonous  blossoms  of 
that  unconquerable  selfishness  which  lies  ever  on  the  watch 
in  the  heart  of  man,  and  is  only  to  be  gradually  tamed  by 
the  justifying  grace  of  God.  The  denial  of  all  freedom, 
under  the  ban  of  sin,  little  by  little  becomes  for  him  the 
principal  thing,  the  "  summa  causa,"  which,  as  he  says  in 
so  many  words,  he  has  to  defend.2  Beside  the  debasement 
of  reason  and  the  false  fancies  of  his  mysticism,  stood  as  a 
worthy  companion  the  religion  of  the  enslaved  will ;  this 
we  find  present  in  his  mind  from  the  beginning,  and  at  a 
later  period  it  obtained  a  lasting  monument  in  the  work 
"  De  servo  arbitrio,"  which  Luther  regarded  as  the  climax 
of  his  theology.3 

But  there  are  other  connecting-links  between  Occamism 
and  the  errors  of  the  young  Monk. 

1  So  Luther  relates,  In  Gal.  2,  p.  103. 

2  "  Tolius  summas  christianarum  rerum."     So  the  Weim.  ed.,   18, 
p.  614.     "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  7,  p.  132,  in  "  De  servo  arbitrio." 

3  This  is  the  work  which  Albert  Ritschl,  the  well-known  Protestant 
theologian,  summed  up  as  follows  on  account  of  the  contradictions 
which   it   contained  :     "  Luther's   work,    '  De   servo   arbitrio,'   is,    and 
remains,  an  unfortunate  piece  of  bungling."     "-Die  christl.  Lehre  von 
der  Rechtfertigung  und  Versohnung,"   I2,  Bonn,   1882,  p.   221.     See 
below,  vol.  ii.,  xiv.  3. 


DIRECT  INFLUENCE  OF  OCCAMISM    161 

According  to  Occam's  school  the  purely  spiritual  attri- 
butes of  God  cannot  be  logically  proved  ;  it  does  not  con- 
sider it  as  proved  merely  by  reason  that  God  is  the  last  and 
final  end  of  man,  and  that  outside  of  Him  there  is  no  real 
human  happiness,  nor  even,  according  to  Occam  himself, 
that  "  any  final  cause  exists  on  account  of  which  all  things 
happen  "  ;*  not  only,  according  to  him,  must  we  be  on  our 
guard  against  any  idea  that  reason  can  arrive  at  God  as  the 
origin  of  happiness  and  as  the  end  of  salvation,  but  even 
His  attributes  we  must  beware  of  examining  philosophically. 
God's  outward  action  knows  no  law,  but  is  purely  arbitrary. 
Thus  Occamism,  with  its  theory  of  the  arbitrary  Divine 
Will,  manifesting  itself  in  the  act  of  "  acceptation  "  or 
imputation,  was  more  likely  to  produce  a  servile  feeling  of 
dependence  on  God  than  any  childlike  relationship  ;  with 
this  corresponded  the  feeling  of  the  utter  worthlessness  of 
man's  own  works  in  relation  to  imputation,  which,  abso- 
lutely speaking,  might  have  been  other  than  it  is. 

It  is  highly  probable  that  the  bewildered  soul  of  the  young 
Augustinian  greedily  lent  an  ear  to  such  ideas,  and  laboured 
to  make  them  meet  his  own  needs.  The  doubts  as  to  pre- 
destination which  tormented  him  were  certainly  not  thereby 
diminished,  but  rather  increased.  How  could  the  idea  of 
an  arbitrary  God  have  been  of  any  use  to  him  ?  In  all 
likelihood  the  apprehensiveness  and  obscurity  which  colours 
his  idea  of  God,  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans,  was  due 
to  notions  imbibed  by  him  in  his  school.  Luther  was  later 
on  to  express  this  conception  in  his  teaching  regarding  the 
"  Deus  absconditus"  on  whom,  as  the  source  of  all  pre- 
destination (even  to  hell),  we  may  not  look,  and  whom  we 
may  only  timidly  adore.  Already  in  the  Commentary 
referred  to  he  teaches  the  absolute  predestination  to  hell 
of  those  who  are  to  be  damned,  a  doctrine  which  no  Occamist 
had  yet  ventured  to  put  forward. 

Among  the  other  points  of  contact  between  Luther's 
teaching  and  Occamism,  or  Nominalism,  we  may  mention, 
as  a  striking  example,  his  denial  of  Transubstantiation, 
which  he  expressly  associates  with  one  of  the  theses  of  the 
Occamist  d'Ailly.  Here  his  especial  hatred  of  the  school  of 
St.  Thomas  comes  out  very  glaringly. 

1  "  Non  potest  probari  sufficienter,  quod  Deus  sit  causa  finalia" 
Quodlib.  4,  q.  2.  Other  Nominalists  go  still  further. 

j.— M 


162  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Luther  himself  confesses  later  how  the  Occamist  school  had 
led  him  to  this  denial.1  When  studying  scholastic  theology  he 
had  read  in  d'Ailly  that  the  mystery  of  Christ's  presence  in  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Altar  would  be  much  more  comprehensible 
could  we  but  assume  that  He  was  present  with  the  bread,  i.e. 
without  any  change  of  substance,  but  that  this  was  impossible 
owing  to  the  unassailable  contrary  teaching  of  the  Church  on 
Transubstantiation.  The  same  idea  is  found  in  Occam,  but  of 
this  Luther  was  unaware.  Luther  criticises  d'Ailly's  appeal  to 
the  Church,  and  then  proceeds :  "  I  found  out  later  on  what  sort 
of  Church  it  is  which  sets  up  such  a  doctrine  ;  it  is  the  Thomistic, 
the  Aristotelian.  My  discovery  made  me  bolder,  and  therefore 
I  decided  for  Consubstantiation.  The  opinions  of  the  Thomists, 
even  though  approved  by  Pope  or  Council,  remain  opinions  and 
do  not  become  articles  of  faith,  though  an  angel  from  heaven 
should  say  the  contrary  ;  what  is  asserted  apart  from  Scripture 
and  without  manifest  revelation,  cannot  be  believed."2  Yet  in 
point  of  fact  the  term  "  Transsuhstantiatio  "  had  been  first  used 
in  a  definition  by  the  (Ecumenical  Lateran  Council  of  1215  to 
express  the  ancient  teaching  of  the  Church  regarding  the  change 
of  substance.  According  to  what  Luther  here  says,  St.  Thomas 
of  Aquin  (whose  birth  occurred  some  ten  years  later)  was  re- 
sponsible for  the  introduction  of  the  word  and  what  it  stood  for, 
in  other  words  for  the  doctrine  itself.  A  little  later  Luther 
solemnly  reaffirmed  that  "  Transubstantiation  is  purely  Thom- 
istic "  (1522). 3  "The  Decretals  settled  the  word,  but  there  is 
no  doubt  that  it  was  introduced  into  the  Church  by  those  coarse 
blockheads  the  Thomists  "  (1541). 4  Hence  either  he  did  not 
know  of  the  Council  or  its  date,  or  he  did  not  know  when  St. 
Thomas  wrote ;  in  any  case  he  was  ignorant  of  the  relation  in 
which  the  teaching  of  St.  Thomas  on  this  point  stood  to  the 
teaching  of  earlier  ages.  He  was  unaware  of  the  historical  fact  of 
the  general  adoption  of  the  term  since  the  end  of  the  eleventh 
century  ;5  he  was  not  acquainted  with  the  theologians  who 
taught  in  the  interval  between  the  Lateran  Council  and  St. 
Thomas,  and  who  used  both  the  name  and  the  idea  of  Tran- 
substantiation, and  among  whom  were  Albertus  Magnus  and 
Alexander  of  Hales  ;  he  cannot  even  have  noted  the  title  of  the 
Decretal  from  which  he  derived  the  knowledge  of  the  existence 
of  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  in  the  Middle  Ages,  for  it 
is  headed  :  "  Innocentius  tertius  in  concilia  generali." 

That  he  should  have  made  St.  Thomas  responsible  for 
the  doctrine   of  Transubstantiation,   and   that   so  rudely, 

1  "  Werko,"  Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  508  ;    "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  5,  p.  29, 
"  De  captivitate  babylonica,"  1520. 

2  Ibid. 

3  "Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  6,  p.  423;    Weim.  ed.,  10,  2,  p.  204.   Contra 
regem  Henricum. 

*  To  Prince  George  or  John  of  Anhalt,  June,  1641,  "Briefe"  (de 
Wette),  6,  p.  284. 

6  Cp.  Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  614  ft. 


"THE  THOMIST  HOGS  '  163 

appears  to  be  a  result  of  his  ever-increasing  hatred  for 
Aquinas.  In  the  first  period  of  his  change  of  view,  his 
opposition  was  to  the  Scholastics  in  general,  but  from  1518 
onwards  his  assaults  are  on  St.  Thomas  and  the  Thomists. 
Why  was  this  ?  A  Thomist,  Prierias  of  Rome,  was  the 
author  of  the  first  pamphlet  against  him  ;  another  Thomist, 
Cardinal  Cajetan,  had  summoned  him  to  appear  before  his 
tribunal ;  both  belonged  to  the  Dominican  Order,  in  which 
Thomas,  the  great  Dominican  Saint,  was  most  enthusiastic- 
ally studied.  Tetzel,  too,  was  a  Dominican  and  a  Thomist. 
Any  examination  of  Luther's  development  cannot  but  pay 
attention  to  this  circumstance,  though  it  is  true  it  does  not 
belong  to  his  earliest  period.  It  makes  many  of  the  out- 
breaks of  anger  to  wrhich  he  gave  way  later  more  compre- 
hensible. In  1522  Luther  pours  out  his  ire  on  the  "  asinine 
coarseness  of  the  Thomists,"  on  "  the  Thomist  hogs  and 
donkeys,"  on  the  "  stupid  audacity  and  thickheadedness 
of  the  Thomists,"  who  "  have  neither  judgment,  nor  insight, 
nor  industiy  in  their  whole  body."1  His  theology,  we  may 
remark,  largely  owed  its  growth  to  this  quarrel  and  the 
contradiction  it  called  forth. 

Luther's  tendency  to  controversial  theology  and  his  very 
manner  of  proceeding,  in  itself  far  less  positive  than  negative, 
bore  the  Occamist  stamp.  It  is  true  he  was  predisposed 
this  way  by  nature,  yet  the  criticism  of  the  nominalistic 
school,  the  acuteness  and  questioning  attitude  of  Occam 
and  d'Ailly,  lent  an  additional  impulse  to  his  putting  forth 
like  efforts.  We  shall  not  be  mistaken  in  assuming  that  his 
doctrinal  arbitrariness  was,  to  a  certain  extent  at  least,  a 
result  of  the  atmosphere  of  decadent  theology  in  which  his 
lot  had  been  cast.  The  paradoxes  to  which  he  so  frequently 
descends  are  manifestly  modelled  on  the  antilogies  with 
which  Occam's  works  abound  ;  like  Occam,  he  frequently 
leaves  the  reader  in  doubt  as  to  his  meaning,  or  speaks 
later  in  quite  a  different  way  from  what  he  did  before. 
Occam's  garrulity  was,  so  it  would  appear,  infectious. 
Luther  himself,  while  praising  his  acuteness,  blames  Occam 
for  the  long  amplifications  to  which  he  was  addicted.2  On 

1  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.."  6,  pp.  397,  399,  400,  425  ;    Weim.  ed.,  10,  2, 
pp.  188,  189,  190,  206.    Contra  regent,  Henricum. 

2  Lauterbach,   "  Tagebuch,"  p.   18.     After  speaking  of  Occam  as 
"  ingeniosissimus "    he   says  :     "  ilUus  studium   erat,    res   dilatare    et 
amplificare  in  infinitum." 


164  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

more  than  one  occasion  Luther  reproaches  himself  for  his 
discursiveness  and  superabundance  of  rhetoric.  Even  the 
Commentaries  he  wrote  in  his  youth  on  the  Psalms  and  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  prove  to  the  reader  that  his  self- 
reproof  was  well  deserved,  whilst  the  second  Commentary 
also  manifests  that  spirit  of  criticism  and  arbitrariness, 
bold  to  overstep  the  barriers  of  the  traditional  teaching  of 
the  Church,  which  he  had  likewise  received  from  his  Occamist 
masters. 

Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  point  out  other 
theological  influences,  besides  those  considered  above,  as 
having  worked  upon  Luther  in  his  earlier  years. 

It  would  carry  us  too  far  to  discuss  •  these  opinions  indi- 
vidually, the  more  so  that  there  are  scarcely  sufficient  data 
to  hand  to  lead  to  a  decision.  Luther  himself,  who  should  be 
the  principal  witness,  is  very  reticent  concerning  the  authors 
and  the  opinions  he  made  use  of  in  forming  his  own  ideas. 
He  would  rather  give  the  impression  that  everything  had 
grown  up  spontaneously  from  his  own  thought  and  research  ; 
that  his  teaching  sprang  into  being  from  himself  alone 
without  the  concurrence  of  outsiders,  like  Minerva  from  the 
head  of  Jupiter.  He  assumes  to  himself  with  the  utmost 
emphasis  the  precedence  in  the  discovery  of  the  Gospel, 
for  instance,  against  rivals  such  as  Carlstadt  and  Zwingli ; 
he  alone  had  read  his  Bible,  and  Carlstadt  was  quite  un- 
acquainted with  it ;  he  only,  with  illumination  from  above, 
had  discovered  everything. 

As  we  find  in  his  writings  so  few  allusions  to  outside 
influences — save  to  that  of  Occamism- — it  does  not  appear 
worth  while  to  philosophise  as  to  whether  he  had,  or  had 
not,  been  touched  by  the  Gallicanism  which  was  in  the  air. 
It  is  very  doubtful  whether  he,  in  the  comparative  seclusion 
of  his  little  world  of  Erfurt  and  Wittenberg,  came  to  any 
extent  under  this  influence,  especially  as  his  studies  were  so 
cursory  and  brief  and  confined  within  such  narrow  limits. 
The  Gallican  tendencies  did  not  find  in  Germany  anything 
like  so  fruitful  a  soil  as  in  France.  It  is  true  that  Luther 
soon  after  his  change  of  opinions  was  capable  of  rivalling 
any  Paris  professor  of  Gallican  sympathies  in  his  depreciation 
of  the  Holy  See.  Hence  though  no  immediate  influence 
on  Luther  can  be  allowed  to  Gallicanism,  yet  the  fact 


MYSTIC  INFLUENCES  165 

remains  that  the  prevalent  anti-Roman  tendencies  greatly 
contributed  to  the  wide  acceptance  of  the  Lutheran  schism 
in  Germany,  and  even  beyond  its  borders. 

Again,  that  Luther,  as  has  been  asserted,  after  having 
tasted  the  food  provided  by  Nominalism,  was  so  disgusted 
as  to  rush  to  the  opposite  extreme  in  Scholasticism,  making 
his  own  the  very  worst  elements  of  realism,  both  philoso- 
phical and  theological,  seems  to  rest  on  fancy  rather  than 
on  facts.  We  may  likewise  refuse  to  see  in  Wiclifism,  with 
which  Luther  was  acquainted  only  through  the  Constance 
Theses,  any  element  of  inspiration,  and  also  shake  our  heads 
when  some  Protestants,  at  the  other  extreme,  try  to  show 
that  the  Doctors  of  the  Church,  St.  Augustine  and  St. 
Bernard,  were  really  the  parties  responsible  for  Luther's 
turning  his  back  on  the  doctrines  of  the  Church. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  influence  of  mysticism,  with  which 
we  have  now  to  deal,  deserves  much  more  attention.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  a  very  considerable  part  in  the  de- 
velopment of  his  new  ideas  was  played  by  mysticism  ; 
already  at  an  early  date  the  mystic  spirit  which  Augustine's 
works  owed  to  their  writer's  Platonic  studies,  had  attracted 
Luther  without,  however,  making  him  a  Neo-PIatonist.1 
During  the  time  of  his  mental  growth  he  was  likewise 
warmly  attached  to  German  mysticism.  Yet,  here  again, 
it  is  an  exaggeration,  as  we  can  already  see,  to  state  as  some 
non-Catholics  do  that  Luther,  "  as  the  theologian  of  the 
Reformation,"  was  merely  "  a  disciple  of  Tauler  and  the 
Frankfort  author  of  the  German  Theology,"  or  that  "it 
was  only  through  meeting  with  the  Frankfort  theologian 
that  he  was  changed  from  a  despairing  swimmer  struggling 
in  the  billows  of  a  gloomy  sea  into  a  great  reformer." 

1  H.  Bohmer,  "  Luther  irn  Lichte  der  neueren  Forschungen," 
(1910),  p.  53.  "  What  made  such  a  deep  impression  on  him  ?  [in  the 
works  of  Augustine].  First,  if  we  may  believe  the  notes  in  his  own 
hand  in  the  copy  he  chiefly  used  ('  Werke,'  Weim.  ed.,  vol.  ix.),  more 
particularly  Augustine's  mystico-philosophical  considerations  on  God, 
the  world,  the  soul,  the  worthlessness  of  all  earthly  things,  and  felicity 
in  God.  These  ideas,  however,  were  hardly  quite  new  to  him.  He  had 
already  met  with  them,  for  instance,  in  Bernard  of  Clairvaux  and 
other  mystics."  That  they  should  have  "  impressed  him  so  forcibly," 
as  Bohmer  rightly  remarks,  was  largely  owing  to  the  fact  that  his  ear 
caught  in  them  echoes  of  the  ideas  germinating  in  his  own  mind. 


CHAPTER   V 

THE   ROCKS    OF   FALSE   MYSTICISM 

1.  Tauler  and  Luther 

JOHN  TAULER,  the  mystic  and  Dominican  preacher  of 
Strasburg,  whom  Luther  so  favoured,  was  quite  Catholic 
in  his  teaching  ;  to  attribute  to  him,  as  has  been  done,  any 
Pantheistic  ideas  is  to  do  him  an  injustice,  and  it  is  equally 
wrong  to  -imagine  that  he  forestalled  Luther's  notions 
regarding  grace  and  justification.  Yet  his  fanciful  and 
suggestive  mode  of  expression,  his  language  which  voiced, 
not  the  conceptual  definiteness  of  Scholasticism,  but  the 
deep  feelings  of  the  speaker,  often  allows  of  his  words  being 
interpreted  in  a  way  quite  foreign  to  his  real  meaning.  It 
was  just  this  depth  of  feeling  and  this  obscurity  which 
attracted  Luther.  As  his  letters  show,  he  breathed  more 
freely  while  perusing  Tauler's  writings,  because  they  re- 
sponded to  his  natural  disposition  and  his  moods,  not  the 
least  point  in  their  favour  being  the  absence  in  them  of 
those  hard-and-dry  philosophical  and  dialectical  mannerisms 
which  were  hateful  to  him.  Without  even  rightly  under- 
standing it,  he  at  once  applied  the  teaching  of  this  master 
of  mysticism  to  his  own  inward  condition  and  his  new,  grow- 
ing opinions  ;  he  clothed  his  own  feelings  and  views  in 
Tauler's  beautiful  and  inspiring  words.  His  beloved  mother- 
tongue,  so  expertly  handled  in  Tauler's  sermons,  was  at 
the  same  time  a  new  means  of  binding  him  still  more  firmly 
to  the  mystic.  In  Tauler  the  necessity  of  the  complete 
surrender  of  the  soul  to  the  action  of  God,  of  indifference 
and  self-abandonment,  is  strongly  emphasised.  To  free 
oneself  as  far  as  possible  of  self ;  to  renounce  all  confidence 
in  oneself  in  so  far  as  this  implies  self-love  and  the  pride 
of  the  sinful  creature  ;  to  accept  with  waiting,  longing, 
suffering  confidence  God's  almighty  working,  this,  with 
Tauler  as  with  all  true  mystics,  is  the  fundamental  condition 

166 


TAULER  167 

for  a  union  through  love  with  the  most  Perfect  Being. 
Luther,  in  his  false  interpretation  of  Tauler,  came  to  dream 
of  a  certain  false  passivity  on  man's  part,  which  he  then 
expanded  into  that  complete  passivity  which  accompanies 
the  process  of  justification.  He  thought  that  Tauler  re- 
pudiated the  doing  of  good  works  in  his  own  sense.  He 
fancied  that  in  him  he  had  an  ally  in  his  fight  against  the 
so-called  self-righteous  and  holy-by-works.  He  quite  over- 
looked the  contrary  exhortations  to  the  practice  of  good 
works  and  all  observances  of  the  Church  which  the  great 
mystic  had  so  much  at  heart.1 

Tauler  frequently  speaks  of  the  night  of  the  soul,  of  the 
darkness  in  which  the  natural  man  must  place  himself  on 
the  Avay  from  death  to  life  and  through  the  cross  to  light ; 
by  this  he  means  the  self-humiliation  which  is  pleasing  to 
God,  by  which  man  fills  himself  with  the  sense  of  his  own 
nothingness,  and  so  prepares  for  the  incoming  of  God  into 
his  innermost  being.  He  often  insists  that  the  Creator,  by 
means  of  the  suffering  and  cruel  inward  desolation  which  He 
sends  His  elect,  brings  about  that  state  of  night,  cross  and 
death,  to  prove  and  refine  the  soul  in  order  to  prepare  it  for 
an  intimate  union  with  Himself.  Such  passages  Luther 
referred  to  the  states  of  fear  and  fright  from  which  he  so 
frequently  suffered,  possibly  also  to  his  want  of  joy  in  his 
vocation,  and  the  state  of  unrest  which,  as  he  complains 
to  his  brother  monk,  George  Leiffer,  owing  to  his  surrendering 
himself  too  much  to  his  own  excessive  cleverness,  pressed 
heavily  upon  him.2  When,  during  the  warfare  he  had  to 
wage  on  behalf  of  his  new  doctrine,  his  inward  unrest 
increased,  and  at  times  almost  mastered  him,  he  took 
refuge  still  more  eagerly  in  the  tenets  of  the  mystic,  striving 
to  calm  himself  with  the  idea  that  his  pangs  of  conscience 
and  his  mental  anguish  were  merely  a  preparation  for  the 
strong,  joyous  faith  which  must  spring  up  in  his  soul  and 

1  Cp.,  e.g.,  Tauler's  complaint  against  those  who  misuse  the  direc- 
tions of  the  mystics  in  the  sense  of  ethical  passivity,  i.e.  of  Quietism  : 
"  They  blindly  mislead  their  nature  and  become  careless  of  all  good 
works,"   etc.      "  They  sink  into  a  dangerous  natural  quietude  .  .  . 
without  the  practice  of  virtue."      "  Man,"   on  the  contrary,   "  must 
recognise  the  commandments  of  God  and  the  Church  and  resolve  to 
keep  the  same."     "  Tauler's  Sermons,"  ed.  Hamberger,  1,  p.   194  f. 
Cp.  J.  Zahn,  "  Einfuhrung  in  die  christl.  Mystik,"  Paderborn,   1908, 
p.  313  ft1. 

2  To  George  Leiffer,  April  15,  1516,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  31. 


168  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

those  of  his  followers  as  a  pledge  of  justification.  His  very 
doubts  and  difficulties  became  to  him,  with  the  help  of  his 
misunderstood  mysticism,  a  sign  that  he  was  chosen  for  the 
highest  things,  and  that  God  would  lead  him  and  all  to 
peace  through  the  new  doctrine.  It  is  in  connection  with 
his  teaching  concerning  the  night  of  the  soul  that  he  most 
frequently  quotes  Tauler  at  the  commencement  of  his 
public  struggle,  whereas,  before  that,  he  had  been  wont  to 
bring  him  into  the  field  only  against  the  so-called  self- 
righteous,  or  against  Scholasticism.1 

It  was  known  at  that  time  that  he  had  become  a  pupil  of 
Tauler,  whom  he  frequently  quoted,  but  few  of  his  adver- 
saries seem  to  have  recognised  the  above-mentioned  psycho- 
logical connection.  Dungersheim  of  Leipzig  on  one  occasion, 
in  1519,  rightly  holds  up  before  him  the  teaching  and 
example  of  Tauler,  and  tells  him  he  might  have  learnt 
from  him  how  useful  it  was  to  accept  from  others  warnings 
and  criticisms  ;  he  gloried  in  having  learnt  from  Tauler 
many  more  spiritual  doctrines  than  from  any  other  man, 
but  he  really  only  understood  one  thing  well,  namely,  how 
to  kick  against  the  pricks  to  his  own  hurt.2 

Luther's  first  mention  of  Tauler  is  not  contained  in  his  letter 
to  Lang  of  the  late  summer  of  1516,3  as  was  hitherto  thought, 
but  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans,  which  was  already  finished 
in  the  summer  of  1516. 

It  follows  from  this  circumstance  that  he  was  already  ac- 
quainted with  Tauler's  sermons  during  the  time  that  he  was 
busy  on  this  Epistle.  He  had  come  across  them  somewhat 
earlier,  probably  in  the  course  of  1515,  when  he  was  nearing  his 
inward  crisis.  In  this  passage  of  the  Commentary4  he  declares 
that  God  works  secretly  in  man  and  without  his  knowledge, 
and  that  what  He  does  must  be  borne,  i.e.  must  be  accepted 
with  humility  and  neglect  of  self.  How  we  are  thus  to  suffer  what 
God  sends,  "  Tauler,"  he  says,  "  explains  in  the  German  lan- 
guage better  than  the  others.  Yes,  yes,  we  do  not  know  how  to 

1  With  regard  to  his  ideas  of  the  supposed  animosity  of  mysticism 
for  Scholasticism,  W.  Kohler  says  ("  Luther  und  die  Kirchengesch.," 
1,  1,  Erlangen,   p.    285)  :     "  the   opposition  between  mysticism   and 
Scholasticism,  which  has  become  historic,  was  never  so  acute  as  it 
appeared  to  Luther's  imagination.     In  principle,   Scholasticism  and 
mysticism  stand  on  the  same  ground,  one  being  the  necessary  comple- 
ment of  the  other." 

2  From    Dungersheim's     "  Dialogus     adversus     M.    Lutherum "'  ; 
Enders,  "  Brief wechsel,"  p.  180. 

3  "  Brief  wechsel,"  1,  p.  55  :    "iuxta  Taulerum  tuum" 
1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  205. 


TAULER  169 

pray  in  the  way  we  should.  Therefore  God's  strength  must  come 
to  the  assistance  of  our  misery.  We,  however,  must  acknowledge 
our  despair  and  utter  nakedness." 

But  without  actually  mentioning  Tauler  by  name,  he  frequently 
in  this  Commentary,  utilises  ideas  which  he  supports  by  his 
teaching.  Thus,  when  in  Romans  v.  3  he  describes  in  far-fetched 
terms  the  self-annihilation  of  the  soul,  its  fears  and  pains,  from 
which  finally  its  firm  hope  in  God  emerges.  The  "  trihulatio 
patientiam  operatur "  of  the  Apostle  he  takes  there  to  mean 
mystical  inward  tribulation ;  one  must  desire  to  be  as  nothing,  in 
order  that  the  honour  of  the  Eternal  God  as  Creator  may  remain.1 
Only  the  self-righteous  and  the  hypocrites  shun  the  mystical 
death  which  lies  in  a  renunciation  of  all  self-merit ;  according  to 
a  mystical  interpretation  of  a  certain  Bible  passage  the  "  strong 
man  armed"  (Luke  xi.  21  f.)  will  destroy  the  "mountains  of 
their  works  "  ;  but  the  good,  in  their  absolute  destitution  and 
tribulation,  rejoice  in  God  only,  because,  according  to  Paul, 
"  the  charity  of  God  is  poured  forth  "  in  the  hearts  of  the  sorely 
proved  ;  they  are  drawn  into  the  mysterious  darkness  of  the 
Divine  union  and  recognise  therein  not  what  they  love,  but 
only  what  they  do  not  love  ;  they  find  nothing  but  satiety  in 
what  they  know  and  experience,  only  what  they  know  not,  that 
they  desire.2  Such  language  simply  misinterprets  some  of 
Tauler's  profound  meditations. 

As,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  Luther  does  not  yet 
refer  either  directly  or  indirectly  to  Tauler,  although  the  matter 
frequently  invited  him  to  do  so,  this  confirms  the  supposition 
that  it  was  only  after  the  termination  of  those  lectures,  or  towards 
their  conclusion  in  1515,  that  he  became  acquainted  with  the 
Master's  sermons — which  alone  come  under  consideration. 
Probably,  as  mentioned  elsewhere,  he  owed  his  knowledge  of 
them  to  Johann  Lang.3 


1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  135,  he  says  of  the  earthly  minded  :   "  Nidlus 
[est]  eius  Deus  creator,  quia  non  vult  esse  nihil,  cuius  ille  sit  creator. 
Nullius  [read  nullus]  est  potens,  sapiens,  bonus,  quia  non  vult  in  in- 
firmitate,  stultitia,  penalitate  sustinere  eum." 

2  Ibid.,  p.  138,  in  the  passage  :    "  Quia  charitas  Dei  diffusa  est  in 
cordibus  noslris  "  (Rom.  v.  5)  :    "  '  Charitas  Dei  '  dicitur,  quia  per  earn 
solum  Deum  diligimus,  ubi  nihil  visibile,  nihil  experimental  nee  intus 
nee  foris  est,  in  quod  confidatur  aut  quod  ametur  out  timeatur,  sed  super 
omnia  in  invisibilem  Deum  et  inexperimentalem,  incomprehensibilem,  sc. 
in  me.dias  tenebras  interiores  rapitur,  nesciens  quid  amet,  sciens,  autem 
quid  non  amet,  et  omne  cognitum  et  expertum  fastidiens  et  id  quod  nondum 
cognoscit,  tantum  desiderans.  .  .  .  Hoc  donum  longissime  abest  ah  iio, 
qui  suas  iustilias   adhuc  vident   et  diligunt  et   non  visis  tristantur.'' 
He  thinks  he  must  rise  superior  to  such  self-righteous,  to  whom  his 
brother  monks,  who  are  zealous  for  good  works  (the  Observantines  ?), 
belonged. 

3  See  above,  p.  43.     We  shall  deal  later  with  his  further  relations 
witk  Lang,  with  whom  he  shared  an  inclination  to  mystic  studies 
and  leanings. 


170  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

One  of  the  books  used  by  Luther  in  his  youth  and  pre- 
served in  the  Ratsschul-Library  at  Zwickau  is  a  copy  of 
Tauler's  sermons  in  the  1508  Augsburg  edition  with  Luther's 
annotations  made  about  1515.1  The  notes  prove  how 
strongly  his  active  imagination  was  caught  up  into  this  new 
world  of  ideas,  and  how,  with  swelling  sails,  he  set  out  for 
the  port  he  thought  lay  beyond  the  mystic  horizon. 

Mysticism  teaches  the  true  wisdom,  he  there  says,  warrrily 
praising  this  knowledge  as  "  experimental,  not  doctrinal " 
("  sapientia  experimentalis  et  non  doctrinalis  ").  Dimly  the  error 
breaks  in  upon  his  mind,  that  man  can  have  no  wish,  no  will  of 
his  own  with  respect  to  God  ;  true  religion  (vera  fides)  is  the 
complete  renunciation  of  the  will,  the  most  absolute  passivity  ; 
only  thus  is  the  empty  vessel  of  the  heart  filled  by  God,  the  cause 
of  all ;  the  work  of  salvation  is  a  "  negotium  absconditum," 
entirely  the  work  of  God,  and  He  commences  it  by  the  destruc- 
tion of  our  self  ("  quod  nos  et  nostra  destruat  ") ;  He  empties  us  not 
only  of  our  good  works  and  desires,  but  even  of  our  knowledge, 
for  "  He  can  only  work  in  us  while  we  are  ignorant  and  do  not 
comprehend  what  He  is  doing."  Any  active  striving  after  virtue 
on  our  part  ("  operatic  virtutum  ")  only  hinders  the  birth  of  the 
word  in  our  soul.2 

His  new  ideal  of  virtue  necessarily  involves  our  not  striving 
after  any  particular  virtues  ;  we  are  not  to  imitate  this  or  that 
special  virtue  of  some  saint  lest  this  prove  to  be  the  result  of 
our  own  planning,  and  not  God's  direction,  and  thus  be  contrary 
to  passivity.3  Not  only  will  he  grant  nothing  to  sexual  desire, 
or  allow  it  anywhere,  but  even  the  enjoyment  of  the  five  senses 
(he  calls  it  simply  luxuria)  must  be  struggled  against,  and 

1  This  is  one  of  the  seven  old  books  discovered  there  in  1889-90; 
the  glosses  added  by  Luther  to   the   same  were  edited  by  Buchwald 
in  the  Weim.  ed.,  volume  ix.     For  the  glosses  to  Tauler,  see  ibid., 
p.  95  ff. 

2  Weim.  ed.,  9,  pp.  98,  102  f.    The  real  action  of  God  on  the  spirit 
is  that  which  takes  place  through  Him  "  ignorantibus  et  non  intelli- 
gentibus  nobis  id  quod  agit."     He  complains  :     "  Etsi  sciamus  quod 
Deus  non  agat  in  nobis,  nisi  prius  nos  et  nostra  destruat  .  .  .  non  nudi 
stamus  in  mera  fide  "  ;    but  the  "  nuda  fides  "  is  necessary  because 
God  acts  contrary  to  our  ways  of  thinking  and  does  what  we  may 
fancy  to  be  "  ex  diabolo."   Such  exhortations  to  confide  ourselves  blindly 
to  a  higher  direction  may  be  right,  but  one  naturally  asks  how  is  the 
fact  of  this  guidance  from  on  high  to  be  guaranteed  and  distinguished 
from  a  mere  leading  astray.     Luther  in  his  public  life  simply  assumed 
his  mission  to  be  divine  because  he  felt  it  to  be  such  (see  vol.  iii.,  xvi., 
1  and  2),  and  because  he  persuaded  himself  that  he  was  being  led  by 
inspiration  from  above  "  like  a  blind  horse  "  to  fight  against  Anti- 
christ. 

3  Weim.  ed.,  9,  p.   103  :    "  Nullius  exempli  passionem  vel  opera- 
tionem  oportet  sibi  prcestituere,  sed  indifferentem  et  nudam  voluntatem 
habere,"  etc. 


TAULER  171 

the  "  sweets  of  the  spirit "  be  kept  at  a  distance,  namely, 
"  devotiones,"  "  affectioties,"  "  consolationes  et  hominum  bonorum 
societates."1 

In  his  recommendation  of  passivity  two  tendencies  unite,  the 
negative  influence  of  the  school  of  Occam,  viz.  the  opposition  to 
human  works,  and  the  influence  of  certain  dimly  apprehended 
mystical  thoughts. 

While  Luther  twists  Tauler's  expressions  to  suit  the  errors 
which  were  germinating  in  his  mind  in  opposition  to  Scholasti- 
cism, or,  rather,  to  Occamism,  he  proceeds,  according  to  his  manu- 
script notes  in  Tauler's  book,  seriously  to  jeopardise  free  will 
without,  however,  as  yet  actually  attacking  it.  He  finds  the 
origin  of  all  evil  in  man's  setting  up  against  God  his  own  will, 
and  cherishing  his  own  individual  intentions  and  hopes.  He 
thinks  he  is  summing  up  the  whole  of  Tauler's  doctrine  with  the 
words  "  God  does  everything  in  us  "  ("  omnia  in  nobis  operatur 
Deus  ").a  Where  Tauler  in  one  of  his  sermons,  obviously  speaking 
of  other  matters,  says  :  "  When  God  is  in  all  things,"  Luther 
immediately  follows  up  the  author's  words  with  :  "  Hoc,  quceso, 
nota  "  ;3  the  exclusiveness  of  the  Divine  being  and  working 
•appears  to  him  of  the  utmost  moment. 

And  yet  it  should  be  expressly  pointed  out  that  Tauler  and  the 
real  Christian  mystics  knew  nothing  of  that  passivity  and  complete 
surrendering  of  self  which  floated  before  Luther's  mind.  On  the 
contrary,  they  declare  such  ideas  to  be  false.  "  The  ideal  of 
Christian  mysticism  is  not  an  ideal  of  apathy  but  of  energy,"4 
"  a  striving  after  an  annihilation  of  individuality  "  was  always 
a  mark  of  mock  mysticism.  Another  essential  difference  between 
true  mysticism  and  that  of  Luther  is  to  be  found  in  the  quality 
of  the  state  of  spiritual  sadness  and  abandonment.  Luther's 
descriptions  of  the  state  mirror  the  condition  of  a  soul  without 
hope  or  trust  and  merely  filled  with  despair  and  dull  resignation  ; 
this  we  shall  see  more  clearly  in  his  accounts  of  the  pains  of  hell 
and  of  readiness  for  hell.  With  the  recognised  Catholic  mystics 
this  is  not  the  case,  and,  in  spite  of  all  loss  of  consolation,  there 
yet  remains,  according  to  them,  "  in  the  very  depths  of  the  soul, 
the  heroic  resolve  of  fidelity  in  silent  prayer."5  Confidence  and 
love  are  never  quenched  though  they  are  not  sensibly  felt,  and 
the  feeling  of  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  its  God  in  this 
Gethsemane  proceeds  merely  from  a  great  love  of  God  which  does 
not  think  of  any  "  readiness  for  hell."  "  That  is  love,"  Tauler 

1  Ibid.,  p.  98  f. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  98  :   It  is  true  he  thinks  he  is  explaining  what  precedes : 
"  Nota,  quod  divina  paii  magis  quam  agere  oportet." 

3  Ibid.,  p.  104.    Cp.  p.  103  :     "  Deus  eat  intimior  rebus  ceteris  quam 
ipse  [i.e.  ipsce]  sibi,"  etc. 

4  See  J.  Zahn,  "  Einfuhrung  in  die  christl.  Mystik,"  p.  320.    Refer- 
ence may  be  made  to  this  excellent  work  for  the  historical  proofs, 
even  from  Tauler,  into  which  we  are  not  able  to  enter  ;   p.  291,  on  the 
"  Erloschen  der  Ichheit." 

5  Zahn,  ibid.,  pp.  331,  327. 


172  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

says,  where  there  is  a  burning  in  the  midst  of  starvation,  want 
and  deprivations,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  perfect  calm.1 

It  is  no  wonder  that  in  Luther's  Commentary  on  Romans, 
written  at  about  the  same  time  as  the  notes,  or  shortly  after,  his 
pseudo-mysticism  breaks  out.  In  addition  to  the  already  quoted 
passages  from  the  Commentary  let  us  take  the  following,  which 
is  characteristic  of  his  new  conception  of  perfect  love :  With  the 
cross  we  must  put  everything  of  self  to  death ;  should  God  give 
spiritual  graces,  we  must  not  enjoy  them,  not  rejoice  over  them ; 
for  they  may  bring  us  in  place  of  death  a  mistaken  life  of  self,  so 
that  we  stop  short  at  the  creature  and  leave  the  Creator.  There- 
fore away  with  all  trust  in  works  !  Only  the  most  perfect  love, 
the  embracing  of  God's  will  absolutely,  without  any  personal 
advantage  is  of  any  worth,  only  such  love  as  would,  if  it  could, 
strip  itself  even  of  its  own  being.2 

Frequently  in  this  period  of  strange  spiritual  transition 
Luther's  manner  of  speaking  of  the  dissolving  of  the  soul  in 
God,  and  the  penetrating  of  all  things  by  the  Divine,  borders 
on  Pantheism,  or  on  false  Neo-Platonism.  This,  however, 
is  merely  owing  to  his  faulty  mode  of  expression.  He  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  either  disposed  or  tempted  to 
leave  the  path  of  Christianity  for  actual  Pantheism  or  Neo- 
Platonism,  although  the  previous  example  of  Master  Eckhart 
and  of  others  shows  us,  that  mysticism  has  not  infrequently 
allured  even  great  and  talented  minds  on  to  these  rocks. 
That  he  should,  as  already  shown,  have  welcomed  without 
any  sign  of  scruple  the  actual  destruction  of  all  free  will  for 
good  must,  in  part,  be  explained  by  his  lack  of  a  thorough 
theological  and  philosophical  training.  How  different 
might  have  been  his  development,  given  his  mental  char- 
acter, had  he,  instead  of  devoting  his  attention  in  his  unripe 
years  to  the  teachings  of  mysticism,  steeped  himself,  for 
instance,  in  the  "  Summa  Theologica  "  of  Thomas  of  Aquin, 

1  "  Sermons,"  ed.  Hamberger,  2,  p.   131 ;  in  the  sermon  on  Luke 
xv.  8  ff.     Cp.  Zahn,  p.  343  ff.     "  Ueber  die  Priifungen  im  mystischen 
Leben." 

2  "  Schol.   Rom.,"   p.    135  seq.,   p.    138  :     "  Charitas  Dei,   quce  eat 
puriasima  affectio  in  Deum,  quce  sola  facit   rectos   corde,   sola   aufert 
iniquitatem,  sola    exstinguit  fruitionem    proprice    iustitice.     Quia  non 
nisi  solum  et  purum  Deum  diligit,   non  dona  ipsa  Dei,  sicut  hipo- 
critce  iustitiarii."     P.   139,  again  against  the  "  hipocritarum  charitas, 
qui  sibi  ipsis  fingunt  et  simulant  se  habere  charitatem.  .  .  .  Diligere 
Deum  propter  dona  et  propter  comodum  est  vilissima  dilectione,  i.e. 
concupiscentia  eum  diligere."     God  is  to  be  loved  "  propter  voluntatem 
Dei  absolute,"  otherwise  it  is  not  the  love  of  the  children  of  God,  but 
the  love  of  slaves.    He  overlooks  the  fact  that  it  is  possible  to  recom- 
mend the  higher  without  altogether  repudiating  the  lower. 


THE   GERMAN   MYSTICS  173 

that  brightest  and  greatest  mind  of  the  Middle  Ages  !  After 
making  himself  thoroughly  at  home  in  such  a  theology  he 
would  then  have  been  qualified  to  summon  to  his  assistance 
the  better  sort  of  mysticism,  in  which  he  would  have  found 
much  agreeing  with  his  stamp  of  mind  and  which  \vould 
have  allowed  him  to  rise  to  a  still  higher  enjoyment  of  the 
true  and  good.  If  then  he  was  not  content  to  stop  short  at 
Tauler  and  the  "  German  Theology,"  there  was  the  Domini- 
can Henry  Suso  also  at  his  service,  the  godly  author  of 
writings  such  as  "  The  Little  Book  of  Eternal  Wisdom," 
which  has  been  called  the  "  finest  fruit  of  German  mysticism" 
(Denifle).  He  shows  in  how  inspiring  a  union  pious  immer- 
sion in  God  can  be  combined  with  theological  clearness  of 
thought.  Many  others  who  flourished  after  the  time  of 
Suso,  in  Germany  and  elsewhere,  and  who  distinguished 
themselves  as  practical  and  at  the  same  time  theoretical 
mystics  by  the  depth  of  their  feeling  and  their  theological 
culture  would  have  served  as  his  examples.  Such  were 
Johann  Ruysbroek,  of  Groenendael  near  Brussels,  Gerard 
Groot  of  Deventer,  the  founder  of  the  Brothers  of  the  Com- 
mon Life,  Henry  of  Lou  vain,  Ludolf  the  Carthusian,  Gerson 
of  Paris- — with  his  excellent  Introduction  to  Mysticism,  on 
the  lines  of  the  so-called  Areopagite — Thomas  a  Kempis, 
the  pious  guide,  and,  among  enlightened  women,  Lidwina 
of  Schiedam  in  Holland,  Catherine  of  Bologna  and  Catherine 
of  Genoa.  The  names  mentioned,  so  far  as  they  belong  to 
the  domain  of  German  mysticism,  point  to  a  fertile  religious 
and  literary  field  in  Luther's  own  country,  as  attractive  by 
profundity  of  thought  and  beauty  of  representation  as  by 
depth  of  feeling  and  heartiness  of  expression.  It  was  a  cruel 
misunderstanding- — which,  however,  is  now  breaking  down 
more  and  more,  even  in  the  case  of  Protestant  writers- — to 
represent  the  ideas  of  German  mysticism  as  precursors  of 
Luther's  later  doctrine. 

This  vein  of  true  mysticism  remained  sealed  to  Luther. 
By  attempting  to  create  a  theology  of  his  own  with  the 
fantastic  notions  which  he  read  into  Tauler,  he  fell  into  the 
mistake  against  which  Thomas  of  Aquin  had  already 
sounded  a  warning  note  in  his  "  Summa  Theological 
Without  a  safe  guiding  star  many  minds  are  led  astray  by 
the  attraction  of  the  extraordinary,  by  the  delusions  of  an 
excited  fancy  or  the  influence  of  disordered  inclinations, 


174  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

and  consider  that  to  be  the  work  of  Divine  grace  which  is 
merely  deception,  as  experience  shows.1 

As  an  expression  of  the  spiritual  turmoil  going  on  in 
Luther,  we  may  quote  a  passage  from  a  sermon  of  January, 
1517.  Speaking  of  the  gifts  of  the  three  kings  he  says  : 
"  the  pure  and  choice  myrrh  is  the  abnegation  with  which 
we  must  be  ready  to  return  to  absolute  nothingness,  to  the 
state  before  creation  ;  every  longing  for  God  is  there  re- 
linquished (!),  and  likewise  the  desire  for  things  outside  of 
God  ;  one  thing  only  is  desired  :  to  be  led  according  to  His 
good  pleasure  back  to  the  starting-point,  i.e.  to  nothingness. 
Ah,  yes,  just  as  before  God  called  us  into  existence  we  were 
nothing,  desired  nothing,  and  existed  only  in  the  mind  of 
God,  so  we  must  return  to  that  point,  to  know  nothing,  to 
desire  nothing,  to  be  nothing.  That  is  a  short  way,  the  way 
of  the  cross,  by  which  we  may  most  speedily  arrive  at  life."2 
Whether  a  sermon  was  the  right  place  for  such,  at  best 
purely  incomprehensible,  an  outburst,  is  doubtful.  Luther, 
the  idealist,  was  then  disposed  to  pay  but  little  attention 
to  such  practical  considerations.  In  the  eyes  of  many  of 
his  pupils  and  friends,  however,  mystical  discourses  of  this 
sort  may  have  lent  him  the  appearance  of  a  pious,  spiritually 
m/nded  man. 

With  regard  to  the  "  way  of  the  cross  "  and  the  "  theology 
of  the  cross,"  which  he  began  to  teach  as  soon  as  he  had  lost 
himself  in  the  maze  of  mysticism,  he  explains  himself  more 
clearly  in  the  Disputations  which  he  organised  at  Witten- 
berg, and  which  will  be  dealt  with  below.3 

1  2-2,  q.  188,  a.  5. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  123  f.,  quoted  by  Hunzinger,  "  Luther 
und   die   deutsche   Mystik  "    ["  Neue    kirchl.    Zeitschr.,"    19    (1908), 
Heft  11,  pp.  972-88],  p.  984,  who  remarks  :   the  passage  shows  "  how 
great  the  danger  was  at  that  time  of  Luther  becoming  lost  in  these 
speculations  "  ;    this  is  the  "  most  extreme  mystical  utterance  to  be 
found  in  his  writings."     When  he  says  :    "  What  is  here  described  as 
a  via  crucia  is  genuinely  Neo-Platonic,"  all  will  not  agree  with  him. 
Hunzinger,  p.  975,  also  considers  it  a  proof  of  Neo-Platonism  when, 
in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  Luther  follows  St.  Augustine  and 
urges  man  "  avertere  se  a  visibilibus  et  converter -e  se  ad  invisibilia  et 
intelligibilia."      One   is  more   inclined  to   agree   with   his   concluding 
sentence  :    "  No  one  will  wish  to  assert,  after  taking  note  of  this  pro- 
position, that  Luther  in  his  mystical  period  never  left  the  path  of  the 
ethical." 

3  See  below,  viii.  2. 


FRUITS  OF  MYSTICISM  175 

2.  Effect  of  Mysticism  on  Luther 

The  study  of  mysticism  was  not  altogether  disadvan- 
tageous to  Luther,  for  it  proved  of  use  to  him  in  various 
ways. 

First,  as  regards  his  grasp  of  spiritual  subjects  and  their 
expression  in  words,  Tauler's  simple  and  heartfelt  manner 
taught  him  how  to  clothe  his  thoughts  in  popular  and 
attractive  dress.  The  proof  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  his 
writings  for  the  people  and  in  several  of  his  more  carefully 
prepared  sermons,  particularly  in  the  works  and  sermons 
of  the  first  period  when  the  mystical  influence  was  still 
predominant.  Also  with  regard  to  the  common  body  of 
Christian  belief,  so  far  as  he  still  held  fast  to  the  same, 
several  excellent  elements  of  Catholic  mysticism  stood  him 
in  good  stead,  notwithstanding  his  inward  alienation. 
The  intimate  attachment  of  the  mystics  to  Christ  and  their 
longing  expectation  of  salvation  through  the  Lord  alone, 
sentiments  which  made  an  immense  impression  on  his  soul, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  understood  them  in  a 
one-sided  and  mistaken  fashion,  probably  had  their  share 
in  preserving  in  him  to  the  very  end  his  faith  in  the  Divinity 
of  Christ  and  in  the  salvation  He  wrought.  They  also  led 
him  to  esteem  the  whole  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God,  and  to 
hold  fast  to  various  other  mysteries  which  some  of  the 
Reformers  opposed,  for  instance,  the  mysterious  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament,  even  though  they  did  not 
prevent  him  from  modifying  these  doctrines  according  to 
his  whim.  While  Luther  retained  many  of  the  views  rooted 
in  the  faith  and  sentiment  of  earlier  ages,  the  Rationalism 
of  Zwingli  was  much  more  ready  to  throw  overboard  what 
did  not  appear  to  be  sanctioned  by  reason  ;  this  came  out 
especially  in  the  controversy  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
reason  of  this  was  that  Zwingli  had  been  trained  in  the 
school  of  a  narrow  and  critical  Humanism  ;  of  mysticism 
in  any  shape  or  form  he  knew  nothing  at  all. 

Among  the  advantages  which  Luther  derived  from 
mysticism  we  cannot,  however,  reckon,  as  some  have  done, 
his  later  success  against  the  fanatics ;  this  success  was  not 
a  result  of  his  having  overcome  their  false  mysticism  by  the 
true  one.  By  that  time  he  had  almost  completely  given 
up  his  mysticism,  whether  true  or  false.  He  certainly  met 


176  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

the  attacks  of  the  fanatics  and  Anabaptists  by  appealing 
to  his  own  mystical  experiences,  but  that  was  really  a  mere 
tactical,  though  none  the  less  effective,  manoeuvre  on  his 
part,  which,  with  his  ready  tongue  and  pen,  he  was  able 
to  put  to  excellent  account.  "  Who  spoke  of  spirits  ?  "  he 
says  ;  "I  also  know  the  spirit  and  have  had  experience  of 
the  spirit ;  I  am  able,  yea,  am  called,  to  reveal  their  delu- 
sions." And  in  the  eyes  of  many  he  may  certainly  have  been 
considered,  on  account  of  the  "  mystical  "  terrors  he  had 
suffered,  and  to  which  he  frequently  referred  in  public,  to 
be  specially  fitted  to  unmask  the  false  spiritualism  of  his 
opponents.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  his  fears  and  his  mysticism 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  real  discerning  of  spirits  ;  they 
never  brought  him  light,  but  only  darkness.  The  truth  is 
that,  at  the  time  of  his  contest  with  the  fanatics,  he  had 
become  more  sober,  had  a  clear,  practical  eye  for  the  mis- 
chief of  the  movement,  and  regarded  it  as  the  highest  duty 
of  self-preservation  to  stamp  out  the  flame  of  revolt  against 
his  patrons  and  his  own  teaching.  We  shall  see,  however, 
that  the  fanatics  were,  in  a  certain  sense,  the  children  of 
Luther's  own  spirit. 

The  real  good  which  Luther  may  have  derived  from  the 
study  of  mysticism  was  far  more  than  counterbalanced  by 
the  regrettable  results  of  his  notions  concerning  the  "  pure 
myrrh  "  of  passivity,  and  the  desire  for  nothingness,  which 
at  one  and  the  same  time  involved  him  in  a  real  labyrinth, 
and  raised  his  estimation  of  his  own  mission  to  an  enormous 
and  dangerous  height.  He  came  to  fancy  himself  far 
superior  not  only  to  the  Occamists,  but  to  the  whole  of  the 
secular  and  regular  clergy,  the  "  swarm  of  religious  and 
priests,"  even  to  all  the  theologians,  and  particularly  to  the 
Scholastics,  those  "  sow  theologians,"  who  knew  nothing 
of  what  he  was  conversant  with. 

His  mysticism  had  already  paved  the  way  for  his  later 
belief  with  regard  to  his  own  Divine  call  to  establish  the 
new  teaching ;  it  was  supported  by  his  views  of  God's 
guidance  of  the  unconscious  soul ;  what  he  would  formerly 
have  regarded  as  a  mistaken  road  and  due  to  diabolical 
inspiration  was  now  labelled  a  godly  act. 

True  and  real  mysticism  could  not  take  root  in  him 
because,  to  start  with,  the  necessary  predisposition,  con- 


MILITANT  MYSTICISM  177 

cerning  which  the  other  mystics  and  Tauler  are  agreed, 
was  wanting,  viz.  above  all  humility,  calmness  and  that 
holy  indifference,  which  allows  itself  to  be  led  by  God  along 
the  path  of  the  rules  of  its  calling  without  any  ulterior, 
private  aims  ;  peaceableness,  composure  of  mind  and  zeal 
in  prayer  were  not  his.  What  mysticism  left  behind  in 
Luther  was  scarcely  more  than  the  fragrance  of  its  words, 
without  any  real  fruit.  What  took  root  and  grew  in  him  was 
rather  the  hard  wood  from  which  lances  are  made,  ready 
for  every  combat  that  may  arise.  His  mysticism  itself 
gives  the  impression  of  being  part  of  the  battle  which  his 
antagonism  to  the  Occamists  led  him  to  give  to  Scholasticism. 
Those  who  contradicted  his  new  ideas- — even  his  brother 
monks,  like  the  Erfurt  philosophers  and  theologians — 
appeared  to  him  to  be  opposed  on  account  of  their  Scholas- 
ticism. The  most  effective  way  of  escaping  or  overcoming 
them  seemed  to  him  the  replacing  of  the  older  theology  by 
another,  in  which,  together  with  Holy  Scripture  and  St. 
Augustine,  mysticism  should  occupy  a  chief  place. 

By  this,  however,  we  do  not  mean  that  the  mysticism  of 
Luther  was  merely  a  fighting  weapon.  From  his  letters  we  may 
gather  that  he  lived  in  the  belief  that  his  new  road  would  con- 
duct him  to  a  joyous  nearness  to  God. 

The  letter  is  dated  December  14,  1516,  in  which  he  exhorts  his 
friend  Spalatin,  at  the  Court  of  the  Elector,  to  taste  in  Tauler 
"  the  pure,  thorough  theology,  which  so  closely  resembles  the 
old,  and  to  see  how  bitter  everything  is  that  is  ourselves," 
in  order  to  "  discover  how  sweet  the  Lord  is."1  He  is 
already  so  mystically  inclined  that  he  will  not  even  advise 
his  friend  in  answer  to  a  query,  which  little  religious  books 
he  should  translate  into  German  for  the  use  of  the  people  ; 
this  advice  lay  in  the  counsel  of  God,  as  what  was  most  whole- 
some for  man  was  generally  not  appreciated  ;  hardly  was  there 
one  who  sought  for  Christ ;  the  world  was  full  of  wolves  (these 
thoughts  certainly  seem  to  have  remained  with  him  in  his  public 
career)  ;  we  must  mistrust  even  our  best  intentions  and  be 
guided  only  by  Christ  in  prayer  ;  but  the  "  swarm  of  religious 
and  priests  always  follow  their  own  good  and  pious  notions  and 
are  thereby  miserably  deceived." 

His  letter  to  George  Spenlein,  which  is  saturated  with  an 
extravagant  mysticism  of  grace,  also  belongs  to  the  same 
year,  1516.2 

On  December  4,  1516  (see  above,  p.  87),  Luther  finished 
seeing  through  the  press  the  "  Theologia  Deutsch,"  which  he 

1  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  74  f. 

2  April  8,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  28.    See  above,  p.  88. 

I.—  N 


178  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

brought  out,  first  in  an  incomplete  edition,  because  he  was  under 
the  impression  that  it  was  by  Tauler.  It  is  an  echo  of  Tauler's 
authentic  works,  somewhat  distorted,  however,  by  Luther's 
Preface,  at  the  end  of  which  he  declares  that  a  thorough  teaching 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  "  must  make  fools,"  intending  thereby  to 
contrast  the  insignificance  of  natural  knowledge  with  Divine 
revelation.  The  booklet  teaches  mysticism  from  the  Church's 
standpoint,  though  its  language  is  not  well  chosen.  There  is, 
however,  no  real  need  to  interpret  certain  obscure  passages  in  a 
pantheistic  sense,  as  has  been  done.  The  booklet  cannot  there- 
fore be  taken  as  a  proof  that  Luther  at  that  time  was  pantheistic- 
ally  inclined,  or  that  he  possessed  so  little  theological  and  philo- 
sophical knowledge  as  not  to  be  able  to  distinguish  between 
Pantheism  and  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  Nor  is  there  the 
slightest  trace  of  specifically  Lutheran  doctrine  in  the  "  Theologia 
Deutsch."1 

In  a  sermon  of  February  15,  1517,  based  on  Tauler,  Luther 
busies  himself  with  those  priests,  laymen,  and  in  particular 
religious,  who,  so  he  says,  wish  to  be  thought  especially  pious, 
but  who  are  hypocrites  because,  even  in  spiritual  things, 
they  do  not  overcome  their  self-love  because  they  attempt,  for 
the  love  of  God,  to  accomplish  much  and  to  do  great  things  ; 
almost  all  Tauler's  sermons,  he  remarks,  show  how  clearly  he 
saw  through  these  false  self-righteous,  and  how  energetically  he 
opposed  them.2  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Tauler,  in  the  remarks 
referred  to,  has  in  his  mind  those  who  deserve,  for  other  reasons, 
to  be  blamed  on  account  of  their  perverse  and  proud  mind,  while 
Luther  utilises  such  utterances  in  support  of  his  own  notorious 
dislike  for  good  works  and  for  zealous  individual  effort. 3 

1  Recently  edited  (1908)  by  H.  Handel  according  to  Luther's 
edition  with  additions  from  MSS. ;  see  "  Theol.  Literaturztg.,"  p.  493 
(1909).  Mandel  says  in  the  preface:  "It  is  obviously  not  correct 
to  represent  Luther's  well-known  experiences  in  the  monastery  [which?] 
as  directly  connected  with  his  fundamental  ideas  of  reform.  Rather 
it  is  evident,  and  acknowledged  by  Lxither  himself,  that  he  learnt  his 
root  ideas  in  the  school  of  Tauler  and  the  '  Theologia  Deutsch.'  " 
It  is  true  that  his  misapprehension  of  the  same  strengthened  his 
mistaken  notions.  The  very  first  chapter  in  the  booklet  disproves 
the  assertion  frequently  made  that  it  is  decidedly  Pantheistic 
in  tone  ;  there  a  definite  distinction  is  made  between  God  and  the 
creature  as  the  "  perfect  "  and  the  "  divided  "  essence  :  "  of  all  the 
divided  none  is  perfect.  Hence  the  perfect  is  no  part  of  the  divided." 
In  the  light  of  this  the  obscure  sentence  which  occurs  in  the  "  Theologia 
Deutsch,"  that  God,  the  Perfect,  is  the  essence  of  all  things,  without 
which  and  outside  of  which  there  is  no  real  being,  must  not  be  under- 
stood in  the  Pantheistic  sense.  The  book,  in  fact,  contains  no  sentence 
which  cannot  be  understood  in  an  orthodox  fashion  when  taken  in 
conjunction  with  others. 

8  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  137. 

3  Cp.  W.  Kohler,  "  Luther  und  die  Kirchengesch.,"  1,  1,  p.  244, 
who  quotes  Tauler  in  the  above  sense  from  his  sermons  in  Hamberger's 
edition  (Frankfurt  a/M.,  1864),  volume  i.,  p.  261  ff.  ;  volume  ii., 
pp.  408,  410,  428.  Kohler  remarks  (p.  239)  that  "  however  much 


ANNIHILATION  OF  SELF-WILL      179 

In  his  defence  of  his  Wittenberg  Indulgence  Theses  against 
Eck's  "Obelisci"  (1518),  we  also  find  a  characteristic  misrepre- 
sentation of  Tauler.  Tauler,  speaking  of  the  possible  torments 
resulting  from  the  deprivation  of  religious  consolation  which 
may  be  experienced  on  earth,  instances  the  vision  of  a  poor  soul 
who,  by  humble  resignation  to  God's  Will,  was  delivered  from 
its  trouble.  Luther  takes  the  story  as  referring  to  a  soul  in 
Purgatory,  and  sees  therein  not  merely  a  proof  that  souls  are 
resigned  in  the  place  of  purgation,  but  that  they  actually  rejoice 
in  the  separation  from  salvation  which  God  has  imposed  upon 
them ;  finally,  he  uses  the  story  in  support  of  his  twenty-ninth 
pseudo-mystical  thesis,  in  which  he  says  that,  on  account  of  the 
piety  of  those  who  have  died  in  the  peace  of  God,  it  is  uncertain 
whether  all  souls  in  Purgatory  even  wish  to  be  delivered  from 
their  torments.1  His  mystical  ideas  concerning  abandonment 
to  God's  good  pleasure  had  warped  his  understanding. 

In  the  above  passage,  and  again  later,  he  instances  Paul  and 
Moses  as  men  who  had  desired  to  become  a  curse  of  God.  If 
they  expressed  such  a  wish  during  life,  he  declares,  a  similar 
desire  on  the  part  of  the  dead  is  comprehensible.  The  common 
and  better  interpretation  of  the  Bible  passages  in  question 
regarding  Moses  and  Paul  differs  very  much  from  that  of  Luther. 

Luther  embraced  the  idea,  which  permeates  Tauler's 
works,  of  the  painful  annihilation  of  self-will  and  of  all 
man's  sensual  inclinations,  not  in  order  to  mortify  his  own 
self-will  and  sensuality  by  obedience  to  the  rules  of  his 
Order  and  humble  submission  to  the  practices  of  the  Church, 
but  the  better  to  make  his  delusive  disregard  for  the  zealous 
performance  of  good  works  appear  high  and  perfect  to  his 
own  mind  and  in  that  of  others. 

One  should  be  ready,  so  he  asserts  in  the  defence  of  his 
theses  against  Prierias,  to  renounce  all  hope  in  any  merit 
or  reward  to  such  an  extent  that  "  if  you  were  to  see  heaven 
open  before  you,  you  would  nevertheless,  as  the  learned 
Dr.  Tauler,  one  of  your  own  Order  [Prierias  was  also  a 
Dominican],  says,  not  enter  unless  you  had  first  consulted 
God's  Will  as  regards  your  entering,  so  that  even  in  glory 
you  may  not  be  seeking  your  own  will."2  In  Tauler  there  is, 
it  is  true,  something  of  the  sort,3  though  it  does  not  authorise 

Tauler  had  in  common  with  Luther  .  .  .  the  latter  overlooked  the 
differences  "  ;  on  p.  244  :  "  his  severity  to  self-righteousness  is  a 
point  which  Luther  learnt  from  Tauler." 

1  In  his  "  Asterisci,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  298,  agreeing  with  the  Resolu- 
tiones.  ibid.,  p.  586.  Cp.  Kohler,  pp.  248-50. 

"  Werke/'  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  674 ;   Kohler,  p.  252. 

3  Volume  ii.,  p.  133. 


180  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Luther  to  assume  the  standpoint  he  does  in  his  theory  of 
resignation.  Luther  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans,  as 
already  stated,  goes  so  far  as  to  preach  resignation  to  eternal 
damnation,  and  even  to  demand  of  us  a  desire  to  be  damned 
should  it  please  God  to  decree  it  for  us  (see  below,  vi.  9). 
All  this  for  the  ostensible  purpose  of  excluding  the  slightest 
appearance  of  self-love.  "  But  how,"  a  modern  author 
asks,  writing  with  a  knowledge  of  the  better  Christian 
mysticism,  "  can  there  be  less  merit  in  striving  after  the 
final  consummation  in  the  next  life  which  is  offered  and 
recommended  to  us  by  the  Divine  favour,  and  from  which 
final  salvation  is  inseparable  ?  How  then  can  the  ideal 
state  of  the  mystic  consist  in  indifference  to  his  perfection 
and  salvation,  to  heaven  or  hell  ?  '51  "  Indifference  with 
regard  to  the  attainment  of  the  highest,  uncreated,  eternal, 
endless  Good  can  never  be  postulated."2  But  Luther  thinks 
he  can  justify  this  and  other  errors  with  the  help  of  Tauler 
and  his  own  mysticism. 

But  he  did  not,  and  could  not,  use  Tauler  as  a  weapon 
against  the  Schoolmen.  All  he  could  do  was  to  magnify 
the  loss  which  these  had  suffered  through  not  being  ac- 
quainted with  such  a  theology  as  Tauler's,  "  the  truest 
theology."  Tauler,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  was  not  opposed 
to  Scholasticism,  indeed,  the  pith  of  his  exhortations  rests 
upon  well-grounded  scholastic  principles. 

By  the  time  his  second  and  complete  edition  of  the 
"  Theologia  Deutsch "  appeared,  the  printing  of  which 
was  finished  on  June  4,  1518,  Luther  knew  with  certainty 
that  this  booklet  was  not  by  Tauler.  Nevertheless,  in  the 
Preface  he  heaps  exaggerated  praise  upon  it,  gives  it  a 

1  J.  Zahn,  "  Einfiihrung  in  die  christl.  Mystik,"  p.  302. 

2  J.   Zahn,  ibid.,  p.   303.     Zahn  expresses  himself  very  aptly  in 
regard  to  the  unfavourable  moral  effects  of  the  contrary  theory  ;    the 
incentive  which  Christ  expressly  recommends  when  He  says  we  are 
to  rejoice  in  the  glorious  reward  which  awaits  us  in  the  next  world 
(Matt.  v.   12)  has  a  very  different    influence.     Against  Fenelon's  in- 
correct views  of  pure  love  without    any  admixture  of  interest  for 
eternal  salvation,  he  has  the  following:    "The  greatest  fault  in  Fene- 
lon's system  lies  in  the  coupling  together  of  the  real  striving  after 
perfection  and  the  attainment  of  salvation  with  an  unworthy  egotistical 
working  for  a  reward  "  (p.  307).     The  theories  of  Mme.  Guyon,  whom 
Fenelon   defends,   are  simply  appalling  :    "  O  Will  of  my  God,  Thou 
wouldst  be  my  Paradise  in  Hell."     According  to  her,  the  sacrifice  of 
salvation  is  the  culmination  of  the  interior  life  (ibid.,  p.  292).     Cp. 
the  propositions  from  the  Quietist  mysticism  of  Molinos,  condemned 
by  Innocent  XI  on  November  20,  1687. 


CHOICE   OF   MYSTIC   GUIDES       181 

place  beside  the  Bible  and  St.  Augustine,  and  declares  that 
his  own  teaching,  on  account  of  which  Wittenberg  is  being 
assailed,  possesses  in  it  a  real  bulwark  :  "  Only  now  "  has 
he  discovered  that,  before  his  tune,  "  other  people  "  thought 
just  the  same  as  he.  Here  then  we  see  the  alliance  which 
he  has  entered  into  with  mysticism,  now  placed  completely 
at  the  service  of  his  rediscovered  Evangel ;  the  sympathy 
which  had  attracted  him  to  the  German  mystics  during 
the  last  few  years  here  reveals  its  true  character  and  is  led 
to  its  overdue  triumph.  In  a  certain  sense  mysticism  was 
always  to  remain  harnessed  to  his  chariot. 

On  the  other  hand,  Luther  very  soon  gave  up  pseudo- 
Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  the  mystic  whose  teaching  had 
spread  from  the  East  over  the  whole  of  the  West.  At  first, 
following  public  opinion,  he  had  esteemed  him  very  highly, 
the  more  so  since  he  had  taken  him  for  a  disciple  of  the 
Apostles  ;  but,  subsequently  to  the  Disputation  at  Leipzig, 
where  the  Areopagite  wras  urged  against  him,  he  shows 
himself  very  much  opposed  to  him.  According  to  Luther, 
he  does  not  allow  Christ  to  come  to  His  rights,  he  grants 
too  much  to  philosophy  and  is,  of  course,  all  wrong  in  his 
teaching  concerning  the  hierarchy  of  the  Church.1  Luther, 
however,  always  remained  true  to  St.  Bernard,  with  whom 
he  had  become  acquainted,  together  with  Gerson,  in  his 
spiritual  reading  at  the  monastery.  From  St.  Bernard,  as 
likewise  from  Tauler,  he  borrowed  many  mystic  ideas,  yet 
not  without  at  the  same  time  forcibly  misinterpreting  them 
and  ascribing  to  the  former,  ideas  which  are  altogether 
foreign  to  his  mind.2  Gerson's  theologico-mystical  intro- 
duction, which  Luther  cites  in  his  glosses  on  Tauler,  did  not 
experience  any  better  treatment  at  his  hands,3  while  Bona- 

1  An    exposition    of    Luther's    directed    against    the    Areopagite 
("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  5,  p.   163)  is  accompanied  with  the  strange 
information  that  one  becomes  a  theologian  "  moriendo  et  damnando, 
non  intettigendo,  legendo  out  speculando." 

2  Kohler,  p.  332.     "  There  is  an  immense  difference  "  when  Luther 
speaks  of  trust  in  God  or  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  when  Bernard 
does  the  same.     "  Luther  did  not  notice  anything  of  this  difference, 
though  it  was  worth  while  examining  ...  he  identified  with  him  his 
own  resuscitation  of  the  gospel." 

3  Cp.    "  Werke,"    Erl.    ed.,  62,    p.    121  f.  (Table-Talk) ;     Kohler, 
p.  362  f.  :    "  Those  Romanists  (Emser,  Eck,  etc.)  knew  better  how  to 
appreciate  Gerson  than  Luther  did,  in  whom  the  insight  into  Gerson's 
'  Catholicism  '  was  sadly  wanting."     "  He  ever  remained  a  stranger 
to  the  true  inwardness  of  Gerson." 


182  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

venture,  the  mystic  whom  he  once  prized,  came  under 
suspicion  on  account  of  his  theological  teaching,  even  before 
the  Areopagite.1 

On  the  other  hand,  he  retained  his  esteem  for  Tauler 
till  the  end. 

Some  very  remarkable  references  which  Luther  makes 
to  Tauler's  teaching  are  in  connection  with  the  troubles 
of  conscience  which  dogged  the  steps  of  the  Wittenberg 
Doctor  from  his  first  public  appearance.  These  will  be 
mentioned  later,  together  with  the  means  of  allaying  such 
torments  of  soul,  which  he  gives  in  his  "  Operationes  in 
Psalmos  "  (1519-21),  borrowing  them  from  misunderstood 
passages  of  Tauler. 

We  conclude  with  another  passage  from  the  "  Opera- 
tiones "  in  which,  following  Tauler,  he  gives  expression  to 
that  favourite  idea  of  his,  which  like  a  star  of  ill-omen 
presided  at  the  rise  of  his  new  theology.  Psalm  xi.,  according 
to  him,  is  intended  to  demonstrate  the  "  righteousness  by 
faith  "  against  "  the  supporters  of  holiness  by  works  and 
the  deceptive  appearance  of  human  righteousness."  This 
is  a  forced  interpretation  going  far  beyond  his  own  former 
exposition  of  the  Psalm  in  question.  "  To-day,"  he  says — 
with  an  eye  on  the  so-called  holy-by-works,  or  iustitiarii — 
"  there  are  many  such  seducers,  as  Johann  Tauler  also 
frequently  warns  us."2  Of  course,  here  again,  what  he  has 
in  mind  are  the  well-known  admonitions  of  Tauler,  to  trust 
in  God  more  than  in  our  own  acts  of  virtue,  though  he  takes 
them  quite  wrongly  as  implying  the  worthlessness  of  works 
for  salvation.  A  Protestant  authority  here  meets  us  at 
least  half-way:  "Tauler  certainly  did  not  hold  in  so 
accentuated  a  fashion  as  Luther  the  antithesis  between 
grace  and  works,  for  he  allows  that  '  good  works '  bring  a 
man  forward  on  the  way  of  salvation."3 

Luther,  since  beginning  his  over-zealous  and  excited 
perusal  of  Tauler's  writings,  presents  to  the  calm  observer 
the  appearance  of  a  man  caught  up  in  a  dangerous  whirl 
of  overstrain.  Even  in  the  first  months  this  whirl  of  a 
mystic  world  brought  up  from  the  depth  of  his  soul  all  the 

1  Kahler,  p.  335  f.,  where  examples  are  given  of  Luther's  "  sub- 
jective interpretation  "  of  St.  Bonaventure. 
"  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  5,  p.  353. 

3  Kohler,  p.  261.  Kohler  says  that  Tauler  "laid  great  stress  on 
the  Divine  initiative  "  ;  but  so  did  the  Scholastics  and  the  Fathers. 


MYSTIC   INTOXICATION  183 

accumulated  sediment  of  anti-theological  feeling  and  disgust 
with  the  state  of  the  Church.  The  enthusiasm  with  which 
Luther  speaks  of  the  "  Theologia  Deutsch  "  and  Tauler, 
shows,  as  a  Protestant  theologian  has  it,  "  that  the 
mysticism  of  the  late  Middle  Ages  had  intoxicated  him." 
"It  is  clear  that  we  have  here  a  turning-point  in  Luther's 
theology."1 

Of  mighty  importance  for  the  future  was  his  unfortunate 
choice,  perhaps  due  to  his  state  of  mind,  just  in  that  period 
of  storm  and  stress,  to  deliver  lectures  at  the  University  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Through  his  Commentary  on 
this  Epistle  he  set  a  seal  upon  his  new  views  directed  against 
the  Church's  doctrine  concerning  grace,  works  and  justifica- 
tion. 

1  Hunzinger,  "  Neue  kirchl.  Zeitschr.,"  ibid.,  p.  985  f.  "  We  may 
say  that  German  mysticism  achieved  what  it  did  in  Luther  in  union 
with  his  study  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans."  "  Thus  the  acute  change 
from  Indeterminism  to  religious  Determinism  took  place  in  Luther 
under  the  direct  influence  of  German  mysticism.  In  the  '  De  servo 
arbitrio  '  it  attained  its  extremest  limit.  This  is  not  explained  [more 
correctly,  entirely  explained],  as  some  have  thought,  by  Occamism, 
but  by  German  mysticism."  P.  987  :  After  his  period  of  mysticism 
Luther  took  leave  altogether  of  the  semi-Pelagianism  and  Indeter- 
minism of  Scholasticism.  On  p.  988  Luther's  standpoint  is  thus 
stated  :  "  Any  concurrence  between  free  will  and  its  faculties  and 
grace,  or  any  kind  of  preparation  for  grace,  is  altogether  done  away 
with.  .  .  .  God's  grace  alone  works  for  salvation,  and  predestination 
is  the  only  cause  of  salvation  in  those  who  are  justified." 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  CHANGE  OF  1515  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  THE 
COMMENTARY  ON  ROMANS  (1515-16) 

1.  The  New  Publications 

LUTHER'S  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  which, 
as  mentioned  above  (p.  93),  he  delivered  at  Wittenberg 
from  April,  1515,  to  September  or  October,  1516,  existed 
till  recently  (1904-8)  only  in  MS.  form.  To  Denifle  belongs 
the  merit  of  having  first  drawn  public  attention  to  this 
important  source  of  information,  which  he  exploited,  and 
from  the  text  of  which  he  furnished  long  extracts  according 
to  the  Vatican  Codex  palatinus  lat.  1826.1  The  MS. 
referred  to,  containing  the  scholia,  is  a  copy  by  Aurifaber  of 
the  lectures  which  Luther  himself  wrote  out  in  full,  and  once 
belonged  to  the  library  of  Ulrich  Fugger,  whence  it  came 
to  the  Palatina  at  Heidelberg,  and,  ultimately,  on  the 
transference  of  the  Palatina  to  Rome,  found  its  way  to  the 
Vatican  Library.  It  was  first  made  use  of  by  Dr.  Vopel, 
and  then,  in  1899,  thoroughly  studied  by  Professor  Joh. 
Ficker.2  While  the  work  was  in  process  of  publication 
the  original  by  Luther's  own  hand  was  discovered  in  1903 
in  the  Codex  lat.  theol.  21,4°  of  the  State  Library  in  Berlin, 
or  rather  rediscovered,  for  it  had  already  been  referred  to 
in  1752  in  an  account  of  the  library.3  According  to  this 
MS.,  which  also  contains  the  glosses,4  the  Commentary, 
after  having  been  collated  with  the  Roman  MS.,  which  is 
frequently  inaccurate,  was  edited  with  a  detailed  introduc- 

1  Denifle,   "Luther  und  Luthertum,"   I1,  more  particularly  from 
p.  413;    Denifle- Weiss,   I2,  more  particularly  from  p.  447;    Denifle, 
I2,  "  Quellenbelege,"  p.  309  ff. 

2  See  Joh.   Ficker,    "  Luthers   Vorlesung   iiber   den   Romerbrief," 
Leipzig,  1908,  p.  xxv.  ff.,  xxx. 

3  Cp.  Grauert,  "  P.  Heinrich  Denifle,"  1906,  p.  53  ff.    Grauert  referred 
to  J.  K.  Oetrich,  "  Entwurf  einer  Gesch.  der  Bibliothek  zu  Berlin  " 
(1752,  p.  63). 

4  On  the  glosses  and  scholia  generally,  see  above,  p.  63. 

184 


COMMENTARY  ON  ROMANS        185 

tion  at  Leipzig  in  1908  by  Joh.  Fickcr,  Professor  at  Stras- 
burg  University  ;  it  forms  the  first  volume  of  a  collection 
entitled  "  Anfange  reformatorischer  Bibelauslegung." 

Denifle's  preliminary  excerpts  were  so  ample  and 
exact  that,  as  a  comparison  with  what  has  since  been 
published  proves,  they  afforded  a  trustworthy  insight  into 
a  certain  number  of  Luther's  doctrinal  views  of  decisive 
value  in  forming  an  opinion  on  the  general  course  of  his 
development.1  But  it  is  only  now,  with  the  whole  work 
before  us,  scholia  and  glosses  complete,  that  it  is  possible 
to  give  a  fair  and  well-founded  account  of  the  ideas 
which  were  coming  to  the  front  in  Luther.  The  connection 
between  different  points  of  his  teaching  appears  in  a  clearer 
light,  and  various  opinions  are  disclosed  which  were  fresh 
in  Luther's  mind,  and  upon  which  Denifle  had  not  touched, 
but  which  are  of  great  importance  in  the  history  of  his 
growth.  Among  such  matters  thus  brought  to  light  were 
Luther's  gloomy  views  on  God  and  predestination,  with 
which  we  shall  deal  in  our  next  section. 

The  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans  ranks  first  .among 
all  his  letters  for  the  depth  of  thought  and  wealth  of  revela- 
tion which  it  contains.  It  treats  of  the  most  exalted  ques- 
tions of  human  thought,  and  handles  the  most  difficult 
problems  of  Christian  faith  and  hope.  Its  subject-matter 
is  the  eternal  election  of  the  Gentile  and  Jewish  world  to 
salvation  in  Christ ;  the  guidance  of  the  heathen  by  the 
law  of  nature,  and  of  the  Jews  by  the  Mosaic  law  ;  the 
powers  of  man  when  left  to  himself,  and  of  man  super- 
naturally  raised ;  the  universality  and  potency  of  the 
saving  grace  of  Christ,  and  the  manner  of  its  appropriation 
in  justification  by  faith  ;  finally  the  life,  death  and  resur- 
rection in  which  the  Christian,  through  faith,  unites  himself 
with  Christ.2 

We  may  doubt  whether  the  young  Doctor  of  Wittenberg 
was  qualified  to  grapple  with  so  great  a  task  as  the  explana- 
tion of  this  charter  of  faith,  especially  bearing  in  mind  his 
comparatively  insignificant  knowledge  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church  and  the  theological  literature  of  the  past,  his  im- 
petuosity in  dealing  with  recondite  questions,  and  his 
excitable  fancy  which  always  hurried  in  advance  of  his 
judgment.  At  any  rate,  he  himself  thought  his  powers 
1  See  above,  p.  93  f.  *  See  below,  chapter  viii.  1. 


186  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

sufficient  for  a  work  on  which  the  most  enlightened  minds 
of  the  Church  had  tested  their  abilities.  He  immediately 
followed  up  this  Commentary  with  other  lectures  on  certain 
epistles  of  St.  Paul,  wherein  the  Apostle  discloses  the  depths 
of  his  knowledge. 

On  perusing  the  lengthy  pages  of  the  Commentary  on 
Romans  we  are  amazed  at  the  eloquence  of  the  young 
author,  at  his  dexterity  in  description  and  his  skill  in  the 
apt  use  of  biblical  quotations  ;  but  his  manner  of  working 
contrasts  very  unfavourably  with  that  of  the  older  Com- 
mentators on  the  Epistle,  such  as  Thomas  of  Aquin  with  his 
brevity  and  definiteness  and,  particularly,  his  assurance 
in  theological  matters.  Luther's  mode  of  treating  the 
subject  is,  apart  from  other  considerations,  usually  too 
rhetorical  and  not  seldom  quite  tedious  in  its  amplitude. 

The  work,  with  its  freedom  both  in  its  language  and  its 
treatment  of  the  subject,  reveals  many  interesting  traits 
which  go  to  make  up  a  picture  of  Luther's  inward  self. 

He  starts  with  the  assumption  that  the  whole  of  the 
Epistle  was  intended  by  its  author  to  "  uproot  from  the 
heart  the  feeling  of  self-righteousness  and  any  satisfaction 
in  the  same,"  and — to  use  his  own  odd  expression — "  to 
implant,  establish  and  magnify  sin  therein  (' plantar e,  ac 
constituere  et  magnificare  peccatum')."1  "Although  there 
may  be  no  sin  in  the  heart  or  any  suspicion  of  its  existence," 
he  declares,  we  ought  and  must  feel  ourselves  to  be  full  of 
sin,  in  contradistinction  to  the  grace  of  Christ  from  Whom 
alone  we  receive  what  is  pleasing  to  God. 

In  his  passionate  opposition  to  the  real  or  imaginary 
self-righteous  he  allows  himself,  in  these  lectures,  to  be 
drawn  into  an  ever  deeper  distrust  of  man's  ability  to  do 
anything  that  is  good.  The  nightmare  of  self-righteousness 
never  leaves  him  for  a  moment.  His  attack  would  have 
been  justifiable  if  he  had  merely  been  righting  against  sinful 
self-righteousness  which  is  really  selfishness,  or  against 
the  delusion  that  natural  morality  will  suffice  before  God. 
Nor  does  it  appear  who  is  defending  such  erroneous  ideas 
against  him,  or  which  school  upheld  the  thesis  Luther  is 
always  opposing,  viz.  that  there  is  a  saving  righteousness 
which  arises,  is  preserved,  and  works  without  the  preventing 

1  Cod.  Vat.  palat.  1826,  fol.  77;  Denifle,  I2,  " Quellenbelege," 
p.  313  f.  ;  Ficker,  "  Rom.  Schol.,"  p.  2  f. 


PREDESTINATION  187 

and  accompanying  grace  of  God.  It  is,  however,  clear  that 
there  was  in  his  own  soul  a  dislike  for  works  ;  so  strong  in 
fact  is  his  feeling  in  this  regard  that  he  simply  calls  all  works 
"  works  of  the  law,"  and  cannot  be  too  forcible  in  demon- 
strating the  antagonism  of  the  Apostle  to  their  supposed 
over-estimation.  Probably  one  reason  for  his  selection  of 
this  Epistle  for  interpretation  was  that  it  appeared  to  him 
to  agree  even  better  than  other  biblical  works  with  his  own 
ideas  against  "  self-righteousness."  We  must  now  consider 
in  detail  some  of  the  leading  ideas  of  the  Commentary  on 
Romans. 

2.  Gloomy  Views  regarding  God  and  Predestination 

The  tendency  to  a  dismal  conception  of  God  plays,  in 
combination  with  his  ideas  on  predestination,  an  incisive 
part  in  Luther's  Commentary  on  Romans,  which,  so  far, 
has  received  too  little  attention.  The  tendency  is  noticeable 
throughout  his  early  mental  history.  He  was  never  able 
to  overcome  his  former  temptations  to  sadness  and  despair 
on  account  of  the  possibility  of  his  irrevocable  predestination 
to  hell,  sufficiently  to  attain  to  the  joy  of  the  children  of 
God  and  to  the  trustful  recognition  of  God's  general  and 
certain  will  for  our  salvation.  The  advice  which  Staupitz, 
among  others,  gave  him  was  assuredly  correct,  viz.  to  take 
refuge  in  the  wounds  of  Christ,  and  Luther  probably  tried 
to  follow  it.  But  we  do  not  learn  that  he  paid  diligent  heed 
to  the  further  admonitions  of  the  ancient  ascetics,  to  exert 
oneself  in  the  practice  of  good  workst  as  though  one's 
predestination  depended  entirely  on  the  works  one  performs 
with  the  grace  of  God.  On  the  contrary,  of  set  purpose,  he 
avoided  any  effort  on  his  own  part  and  preferred  the  mis- 
leading mystical  views  of  Quietism. 

The  melancholy  idea  of  predestination  again  peeps  out 
unabashed  in  the  passage  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms, 
where  he  says,  that  Christ  "  drank  the  cup  of  pain  for  His 
elect,  but  not  for  all."1 

If  he  set  out  to  explain  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  with  a 
gloomy  conception  of  God,  in  which  we  recognise  the  old 
temptations  regarding  predestination,  owing  to  his  mis- 
apprehension of  certain  passages  of  the  Epistle  concerning 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  227. 


188  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

God's  liberty  and  inscrutability  in  the  bestowal  of  grace, 
his  ideas,  as  he  advances,  become  progressively  more"  stern 
and  dismal.  The  editor  of  the  Commentary  remarks,  not 
without  reason,  on  the  forcible  way  in  which  Luther,  "  even 
in  chapter  i.,  emphasises  the  sovereignty  of  the  Will  of  God."1 
It  is  true  of  many,  Luther  says  there,  that  God  gives  them 
up  to  the  desires  of  their  heart,  unto  uncleanness  (cp.  Rom. 
i.  24),  nor  is  this  merely  a  permission,  but  an  appointment 
and  command  ("  non  tantum  permissio,  sed  commissio  et 
iussio  ").2  In  such  a  case  God  commands  the  devil  or  the 
flesh  to  tempt  a  man  and  conquer  him.  It  is  true  that  when 
God  chooses  to  act  graciously  He  prevents  the  evil ;  but 
He  also  wills  to  be  severe  and  to  punish,  and  "  then  He 
makes  the  wicked  to  sin  more  abundantly  ('  facit  abundantius 
peccare')" ;  then  "He  forsakes  a  man  so  that  he  may  not 
be  able  to  resist  the  devil,  who  carries  out  the  order  and  the 
Will  of  God  in  bringing  about  his  fall." 

The  youthful  University  Professor  believes  that  he  is 
here  teaching  a  "  more  profound  theology."  No  one  was 
to  come  to  him,  he  says,  with  the  shallow  and  hackneyed 
assertion  that,  on  the  above  hypothesis,  man's  free  will  was 
destroyed  ;  only  narrow  minds  ("  rudiores  ")  take  exception 
at  this  "  profundior  theologia."3  The  teaching  of  this  new 
theology  was  the  following  : 

"  This  man  may  do  what  he  pleases,  it  is  God's  will  that  he 
should  be  overcome  by  sin."  "It  is  true  that  God  does  not 
desire  the  sin,  although  He  wills  that  it  shall  take  place  ('  non 
sequitur  quod  Deus  peccatum  velit,  licet  ipsum  velit  fieri  ')  ;  for  He 
only  wills  that  it  shall  happen,  in  order  to  manifest  in  man  the 
greatness  of  His  anger  and  His  severity  by  punishing  in  him  the 
sin  which  He  hates."  "It  is  therefore  on  account  of  the  punish- 
ment that  God  wills  that  the  sin  shall  be  committed.  .  .  .  God 
alone  may  will  such  a  thing  "  ("  Hoc  autetn  soli  Deo  licitum  est 
velle"),*  and  he  repeats  fearlessly:  "in  order  that  all  misery 
and  shame  may  be  heaped  upon  the  man,  God  wills  he  should 
commit  this  sin."5  He  fancies  he  is  communicating  to  his  pupils 
"  the  highest  secrets  of  theology,"  meant  only  for  the  perfect, 
when  he  assures  them  that  both  statements  are  right :  God  wills 
to  oblige  me  and  all  men  [to  do  what  is  good]  and  yet  He  does  not 

1  Ficker,  p.  1. 

*  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  21  ff.    Denifle  had  only  stated  generally  that 
Luther  taught  absolute  predestination,  without  quoting  the  passages 
in  the  Commentary.     Cp.  Fr.  Loofs,  "  Dogmengesch.,"4  p.  709,  n.  8. 

8  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  22  f.  *  Ibid.,  p.  22  f. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  23. 


"SENSELESS  CHATTER"  189 

give  His  grace  to  all,  but  only  to  whom  He  will,  reserving  to  Him- 
self the  choice.  Some  it  does  not  please  Him  to  justify  because 
He  manifests  so  much  the  more  through  them  His  honour  in  the 
elect  ;  in  the  same  way  He  also  wills  sin,  though  only  indirectly, 
viz.  "  that  He  may  be  glorified  in  the  elect."  Hence  we  must 
not  make  it  a  mere  matter  of  permission,  for  "  how  would  God 
permit  it  unless  it  were  His  will  ?  "  "  Senseless  chatter,"  thus 
he  describes  the  unanimous  contrary  teaching  of  theologians, 
"  such  is  the  objection  they  raise  that  man  would  thus  be  damned 
without  any  fault  on  his  part,  because  he  could  not  fulfil  the  law 
and  was  expected  to  do  what  was  impossible." — We  can  only  ask 
how  his  own  method  is  to  be  described  when  he  contents  himself 
with  this  solution  :  "If  that  objection  had  any  weight  it  would 
follow  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  preach,  to  pray,  to  exhort,  and 
Christ's  death  would  also  not  be  necessary.  Yet  by  means  of  all 
this  God  has  chosen  to  save  His  elect."1 

Luther,  as  this  somewhat  lengthy  passage  shows,  had, 
at  any  rate  at  that  time,  no  bright,  kindly  idea  of  God's 
Nature,  Goodness  and  inexhaustible  Mercy,  which  wills  to 
make  every  creature  here  on  earth  happy  and  to  save  them 
in  eternity ;  his  mind  was  imprisoned  within  the  narrow 
limits  to  which  he  had  before  this  accustomed  himself ; 
a  false  conception  of  God's  essence' — perhaps  a  remainder 
of  his  Occamist  training — was  already  poisoning  the  very 
vitals  of  his  theology. 

His  melancholy  conception  of  God  comes  to  light  not 
only  in  the  various  passages  where  he  speaks  of  predestina- 
tion, but  also  in  the  dark  pictures,  which,  in  his  morbid 
frame  of  mind,  he  paints  of  the  wickedness  and  sin  of  man 
pitting  his  unquenchable  concupiscence  against  God,  the 
All  Holy.2  In  order  to  adore  this  stern  and  cruel  God  in 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  24. 

2  With  regard  to  the  fact  of  Luther's  tendency  to  a  fear  and  terror 
of  God,   O.   Scheel  says   ("  Die  Entwicklung  Luthers,  Schriften  des 
Vereins  fur  Reformationsgesch.,"  No.  100,  Leipzig,  1910,  pp.  61-230, 
p.  80)  :    "  We  possess  statements  from  Luther's  own  pen  during  his 
life  in  the  monastery  which  show  that  the  thought  of  death  and  Divine 
Judgment  moved  him  deeply.     The  words,  that  the  countenance  of 
the  Lord  is  upon  us,  are  [to  him]  terrible.  .  .  .  We  see  one  fear  suc- 
ceeding the  other  in  the  face  of  sudden  death   .  .  .  the  thought  of 
God  the  Judge  inspires  him  with  horror.  ...  It  is  possible  that  the 
manner  in  which  these  feelings  express  themselves  was  connected 
with  morbid  dispositions,  that  the  attacks  of  fear  which  suddenly, 
without  apparent  cause,  fell  upon  him,  were  due  to  an  unhealthy  body. 
That  the  assaults  reacted  on  his  bodily  state  is  probable.     The  root 
of  the  fear,  however,  lies  in  the  lively  conviction  of  the  righteous 
Judgment  of  God."     W.  Braun  ("  Die  Bedeutung  der  Concupiscenz 
in  Luthers  Leben  und  Lehre,"  p.  295)  thinks  that  "  Luther's  assaults 
in  the  monastery  were  a  mystical  exercise.     He  experienced  what 


190  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

his  own  way  he  had  already  built  up  on  his  false  mysticism 
a  practical  theory  of  resignation  and  self-surrender  to 
whatever  might  be  the  Divine  Will,  even  should  it  destine 
him  to  damnation.  In  the  first  pages  of  the  Commentary 
on  Romans  his  idea  of  God  enables  him  to  proclaim  loudly 
and  boldly,  and  with  full  knowledge  of  what  he  is  doing, 
his  opposition  to  the  religious  practice  of  his  many  zealous 
contemporaries,  whether  clerics  or  laymen. 

Many  have,  according  to  him,  an  idea  of  God  different  from 
his  :  "  Oh,  how  many  there  are  to-day  who  do  not  worship  God 
as  He  is,  but  as  they  imagine  Him  to  be.  Look  at  their  singu- 
larities and  their  superstitious  rites,  full  of  delusions.  They  give 
up  what  they  ought  to  practise,  they  choose  out  the  works  by 
which  they  will  honour  Him,  they  fancy  that  God  is  such  that 
He  looks  down  upon  them  and  their  works."  "  There  is  spread 
abroad  to-day  a  sort  of  idolatry  by  which  God  is  not  served  as 
He  is.  The  love  of  their  own  ideas  and  their  own  righteousness 
entirely  blinds  mankind,  and  they  call  it  '  good  intention.'  They 
imagine  that  God  is  thereby  graciously  disposed  to  them,  whereas 
it  is  not  so  :  and  so  they  worship  their  phantom  God  rather  than 
the  true  God."1 

Neither  do  they  understand  how  to  pray,  because  they  do  not 
know  the  awfulness  of  God.  Does  not  the  Scripture  say ;  he 
asks  them  :  "  Serve  ye  the  Lord  with  fear  and  rejoice  unto  Him 
with  trembling"  (Ps.  ii  11),  and  "with  fear  and  trembling 
work  out  your  salvation  "  (Phil.  ii.  12)  ?  Not  wanting  to  look  at 
their  own  works  as  "  bad  and  suspicious  "  in  the  eyes  of  this 
God,  "  they  do  not  assiduously  call  upon  His  grace."  They 
assume  that  their  good  intention  arises  out  of  themselves,  whereas 
it  is  a  gift  of  God,  and  desire  to  prepare  themselves  for  the 
infusion  of  grace.2  "  Pelagian  notions  are  at  the  bottom  of  all 
this.  No  one  acknowledges  himself  now  to  be  a  Pelagian,  but 
many  are  so  unconsciously,  with  their  principle  that  free  will 
must  set  to  work  to  obtain  grace."3 

Such  is  the  perilous  position  he  reaches  under  the  influence  of 
his  distaste  for  works,  viz.  a  violent  antagonism  to  free  will. 
Man  is  unable  to  do  the  least  thing  to  satisfy  this  Holy  God.* 
The  Occamist  theology  of  the  school  in  which  he  was  trained 
here  serves  him  in  good  stead,  as  the  following  sentences,  which 

Tauler  and  the  '  Theologia  Deutsch  '  relate  regarding  the  consuming 
inward  fires  of  Purgatory.  Luther  mentions  that  Tauler  [like  himself  !] 
was  acquainted  with  the  '  horror  conscientice  a  facie  iudicii  Dei.'  " 
"  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  5,  p.  203. 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  20  f. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  323. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  322. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  222  f.  :  ''  Hii  (qui  vere  bona  faciunt)  sciunt  quod  homo 
ex  se  nihil  potest  facere,"  in  contradistinction  to  the  "  Pelagians,"  who 
"  libertati  arbitrii  tribuunt  Jacere  quod  eat  in  ae,  ante  gratiam." 


SELF-DESPAIR  191 

are  closely  akin  to  Occam's  acceptation-theory,  show  :  "  We 
must  always  be  filled  with  anxiety,  ever  fear  and  await  the 
Divine  acceptance  "  ;  for  as  all  our  works  are  in  themselves  evil, 
"  only  those  are  good  which  God  imputes  as  good  ;  they  are 
in  fact  something  or  nothing,  only  in  so  far  as  God  accepts  them 
or  not."  "  The  eternal  God  has  chosen  good  works  from  the 
beginning  that  they  should  please  Him,"1  "  but  how  can  I  ever 
know  that  my  deed  pleases  God  ?  How  can  I  even  know  that  my 
good  intention  is  from  God  ?  "2  Hence,  away  with  the  proud 
self-righteous  ("  superbi  iustitiarii")  who  are  so  sure  of  their 
good  works  ! 

Fear,  desponding  humility  and  self-annihilation,  according 
to  Luther,  are  the  only  feelings  one  can  cherish  in  front  of  this 
terrible,  unaccountable  God.3  "He  who  despairs  of  himself  is 
the  one  whom  God  accepts."* 

He  also  speaks  of  a  certain  "  pavor  Dei,"  which  is  the  founda- 
tion of  salvation  :  "  trepidare  et  terreri  "  is  the  best  sign,  as  it  is 
said  in  Psalm  cxliii.  :  "  Shoot  out  Thy  arrows  and  Thou  shalt 
trouble  them,"  the  "  terrens  Deus  "  leads  to  life.5  True  love  does 
not  ask  any  enjoyment  from  God,  rather,  he  here  repeats,  who- 
ever loves  Him  from  the  hope  of  being  made  eternally  happy  by 
Him,  or  from  fear  of  being  wretched  without  Him,  has  a  sinful 
and  selfish  love  ("amor  concupiscentice  ") ;  but  to  allow  the 
terrors  of  God  to  encompass  us,  to  be  ready  to  accept  from 
Him  the  most  bitter  interior  and  exterior  cross,  to  all  eternity, 
that  only  is  perfect  love.  And  even  with  such  love  we  are 
dragged  into  thick  interior  darkness.6 

All  these  gloomy  thoughts  which  cloud  his  mind,  gather, 
when  he  comes  to  explain  chapters  viii.  and  ix.  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  where  the  Apostle  deals  with  the  question 
of  election  to  grace. 

Luther  thinks  he  has  here  found  in  St.  Paul  the  doctrine 
of  predestination,  not  only  to  heaven,  but  also  to  hell, 
expressed,  moreover,  in  the  strongest  terms.  At  the  same 
time  he  warns  his  hearers  against  faint-heartedness,  being 
well  aware  how  dangerous  his  views  might  prove  to  souls. 

"  Let  no  one  immerse  himself  in  these  thoughts  who  is  not 
purified  in  spirit,  lest  he  sink  into  an  abyss  of  horror  and  despair  ; 
the  eyes  of  the  heart  must  first  be  purified  by  contemplating  the 
wounds  of  Christ.  I  discourse  upon  these  matters  solely  because 
the  trend  of  the  lectures  leads  up  to  them,  and  because  they  are 
unavoidable.  It  is  the  strongest  wine  there  is,  and  the  most 
perfect  food,  a  solid  nourishment  for  the  perfect ;  it  is  that  most 
exalted  theology  of  which  the  Apostle  says  (1  Cor.  ii.  6):  'we 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  221.  2  Ibid.,  p.  323. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  221.  «  Ibid.,  p.  223. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  214.  •  Ibid.,  pp.  215-20. 


192  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

speak  wisdom  among  the  perfect '  .  .  .  only  the  perfect  and  the 
strong  should  study  the  first  book  of  the  Sentences  [because 
predestination  is  dealt  with  at  the  end  of  Peter  Lombard's  first 
book]  ;  it  should  really  be  the  last  and  not  the  first  book  ;  to- 
day many  who  are  unprepared  jump  at  it  and  then  go  away 
blinded  in  spirit."1 

Luther  teaches  that  the  Apostle's  doctrine  is  :  God  did  not 
in  their  lifetime  exercise  His  mercy  towards  the  damned  ;  He 
is  right  and  not  to  be  blamed  when  He  follows  herein  His  own 
supreme  will  alone.  "  Why  then  does  man  murmur  as  though 
God  were  not  acting  according  to  the  law  ?  "  His  will  is,  for 
every  man,  the  highest  good.  Why  should  we  not  desire,  and 
that  with  the  greatest  fervour,  the  fulfilment  of  this  will,  since 
it  is  a  will  which  can  in  no  way  be  evil  ?  "  You  say  :  Yes,  but  for 
me  it  is  evil.  No,  it  is  evil  for  none.  The  only  evil  is  that  men 
cannot  understand  God's  will  and  do  it  "  ;  they  should  know 
that  even  in  hell  they  are  doing  God's  will  if  it  is  His  wish  that 
they  should  be  there. 2 

Hence  the  only  way  he  knows  out  of  the  darkness  he  has 
himself  created  is  recognition  of,  and  resignation  to,  the 
possibility  of  a  purely  arbitrary  damnation  by  God.  The 
expressions  he  here  makes  use  of  for  reprobation,  "  inter 
reprobos  haberi,"  "  damnari,"  "  morte  ceterna  puniri,"  make 
it  plain  that  he  demands  resignation  to  actual  reprobation 
and  to  being  placed  on  a  footing  with  the  damned.  Yet,  as 
he  always  considers  this  resignation  as  the  most  perfect 
proof  of  acquiescence  in  the  Will  of  God,  it  does  not,  accord- 
ing to  him,  include  within  itself  a  readiness  to  hate  God, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  the  strongest  and  highest  love.3 
With  such  an  exalted  frame  of  mind,  however,  the  actual 
penalty  of  hell  would  cease  to  exist.  "  It  is  impossible  that 
he  should  remain  apart  from  God  who  throws  himself  so 
entirely  into  the  Will  of  God.  He  wills  what  God  wills, 
therefore  he  pleases  God.  If  he  pleases  God,  then  he  is 
loved  by  God  ;  if  he  is  loved  by  God,  then  he  is  saved."4 
That  he  is  thus  cutting  the  ground  from  under  his  hypothesis . 
of  an  inevitable  predestination  to  hell  by  teaching  how  we 
can  escape  it,  does  not  seem  to  strike  him.  Or  does  he, 
perhaps,  mean  that  only  those  who  are  not  predestined  to 
hell  can  thus  overcome  the  fear  of  hell  ?  Will  such  resigna- 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  226. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  223  :    "  Si  enim  velle.nl  quod  vult  Deus,  etiamsi  damnatoa 
et  reprobates  vellet,  non  haberent  malum  ;    quia  vellent,  quod  vult  Deus, 
et  haberent  in  se  voluntatem  Dei  per  patientiam." 

3  Ibid.,  p.  217.  «  Ibid.,  p.  217  f. 


CONTINGENCY   AN   ILLUSION      193 

tion  be  possible  to  him  who  really  believes  himself  destined 
to  hell,  and  who  sees  even  in  his  resignation  no  means 
whereby  he  can  escape  it  ? 

To  such  a  one  even  the  "  wounds  of  Christ  "  offer  no 
assurance  and  no  place  of  refuge.  They  only  speak  to  man 
of  the  God  of  revelatipn,  not  of  the  mysterious,  unsearchable 
God.  The  untenable  and  insulting  comparison  between  the 
mysterious  and  the  revealed  Supreme  Being  which  Luther 
was  later  on  to  institute  is  here  already  foreshadowed. 

He  explains  in  detail  how  the  will  of  man  does  not  in  the 
least  belong  to  the  person  who  wills,  or  the  road  to  the 
runner.  "  All  is  God's,  who  gives  and  creates  the  will." 
We  are  all  instruments  of  God,  who  works  all  in  all.  Our 
will  is  like  the  saw  and  the  stick — examples  which  he  re- 
peatedly employs  later  in  his  harshest  utterances  concerning 
the  slavery  of  the  will.  Sawing  is  the  act  of  the  hand  which 
saws,  but  the  saw  is  passive;  the  animal  is  beaten, 
not  by  the  stick,  but  by  him  who  holds  the  stick.  So  the 
will  also  is  nothing,  but  God  who  wields  it  is  everything.1 

Hence  he  rejects  most  positively  the  theological  doctrine 
that  God  foresees  the  final  lot  of  man  as  something  "  con- 
tingenter  futurum,"  i.e.  that  he  sees  his  rejection  as  something 
dependent  on  man  and  brought  about  by  his  own  fault. 
No,  according  to  Luther,  in  the  election  of  grace  everything 
is  preordained  "  inflexibili  et  firma  voluntate,"  and  this, 
His  own  will,  is  alone  present  in  the  mind  of  God. 

Luther  speaks  with  scorn  of  "  our  subtle  theologians,"  who 
drag  in  their  "  contingent  "  and  build  up  an  election  by  grace  on 
"  necessitas  consequential,  sed  non  consequentis,"  in  accordance 
with  the  well-known  scholastic  ideas.  "  With  God  there  is 
absolutely  no  '  contingens,'  but  only  with  us  ;  for  no  leaf  ever 
falls  from  the  tree  to  the  earth  without  the  will  of  the  Father." 
Besides,  the  theologians — so  he  accuses  the  Scholastics  without 
exception — "  have  imagined  the  case  so,  or  at  least  have  led  to 
its  being  so  imagined,  as  though  salvation  were  obtained  or  lost 
through  our  own  free  will."2 

We  know  that  here  he  was  wrong.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  true 
Scholasticism  attributed  the  work  of  salvation  to  grace  together 
with  free  will,  so  that  two  factors,  the  Divine  and  the  human, 
or  the  supernatural  and  the  natural,  are  mutually  engaged  in  the 
same.  But  Luther,  when  here  reporting  the  old  teaching,  does 
not  mention  the  factor  of  grace,  but  only  "  nostrum  arbitrium." 

He  then  adds  :    "  Thus  I  once  understood  it."     If  he  really 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  225.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  208,  209,  210. 

I.— o 


194  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

ever  believed  salvation  to  be  exclusively  the  work  of  free  will, 
then  he  erred  grievously,  and  merely  proves  how  defective  his 
study,  even  of  Gabriel  Biel,  had  been. 

He  also  interpreted  quite  wrongly  the  view  of  contemporary 
and  earlier  scholastic  theologians  on  the  love  of  God,  and,  again, 
by  excluding  the  supernatural  factor.  He  reproaches  them  with 
having,  so  he  says,  considered  the  love  in  question  as  merely 
natural  ("  ex  natura  ")  and  yet  as  wholesome  for  eternal  life,  and 
he  demands  that  all  wholesome  love  be  made  to  proceed  "  ex 
Spiritu  Sancto,"  a  thing  which  all  theologians,  even  the  Occam- 
ists,  had  insisted  on.  He  says  :  "  they  do  not  know  in  the  least 
what  love  is,"1  "  nor  do  they  know  what  virtue  is,  because  they 
allow  themselves  to  be  instructed  on  this  point  by  Aristotle, 
whose  definition  is  absolutely  erroneous."2  It  makes  no  im- 
pression upon  him — perhaps  he  is  even  ignorant  of  the  fact — 
that  the  Scholastics  consider,  on  good  grounds,  the  love  which 
loves  God's  goodness  as  goodness  towards  us,  and  which  makes 
personal  salvation  its  motive,  compatible  with  the  perfect  love 
of  friendship  (amicitice,  complacentice).3  According  to  him,  this 
love  must  be  extirpated  ("amor  exstirpandus  " )  because  it  is  full 
of  abominable  self-seeking.4  In  its  place  he  sets  up  a  most 
perfect  love  (which  will  be  described  below),  which  includes 
resignation  to,  and  even  a  desire  for,  hell-fire,  a  resignation  such 
as  Christ  Himself  manifested  (!)  in  His  abandonment  to  suffering. 

Luther  had  now  left  the  safe  path  of  theological  and  ecclesi- 
astical tradition  to  pursue  his  own  ideas. 

It  is  true  that,  notwithstanding  his  exhortation  to  be  resigned 
to  the  holy  will  of  God  in  every  case,  he  looks  with  fear  at  the 
flood  of  blasphemies  which  must  arise  in  the  heart  of  one  who 
fears  his  own  irrevocable,  undeserved  damnation.  Anxious  to 
obviate  this,  or  to  arm  the  conscience  against  it,  when  pointing 
to  the  wounds  of  Christ  he  adds  these  words  :  "  Should  anyone, 
owing  to  overmastering  temptation,  come  to  blaspheme  God, 
that  would  not  involve  his  eternal  damnation.  For  even  towards 
the  godless  our  God  is  not  a  God  of  impatience  and  cruelty.  Such 
blasphemies  are  forced  out  of  a  man  by  the  devil,  therefore  they 
may  be  more  pleasing  to  God's  ear  than  any  Alleluia  or  song  of 
praise.  The  more  terrible  and  abominable  a  blasphemy  is,  the 
more  pleasing  it  is  to  God  when  the  heart  feels  that  it  does  not 
acquiesce  in  it,  i.e.  when  it  is  involuntary."5 

Involuntary  thoughts,  to  which  alone  he  sees  fit  to  refer,  are, 
of  course,  not  deserving  of  punishment  ;  but  are  the  murmurs 
and  angry  complaints  against  predestination  to  hell  of  which  he 
speaks  always  only  involuntary  ?  The  way  to  resignation  which 
he  mentions  in  the  same  connection  is  no  less  questionable.  It 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  219.  2  Ibid.,  p.  221. 

3  Bonaventure,  in  iii.,  dist.  27,  a.  2,  q.  2  :  "  Amor  concupiscentice 
non  repugnat  amori  amicitice  in  caritate,"  etc.  Cp.  Thorn.  Aquin., 
2-2,  q.  23,  a.  1. 

*  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  pp.  210,  218 

6  Ibid.,  p.  227. 


UNCONDITIONAL   PREDESTINATION   195 

consists  largely  in  "not  troubling  about  such  thoughts."1     But 
will  all  be  able  to  get  so  far  as  this  ? 

He  again  repeats  with  great  insistence  that  "  everything 
happens  according  to  God's  choice  "  ;  "he  upon  whom  God 
does  not  have  mercy,  remains  in  the  '  massa  '  "  [perditionis].* 
"  For  whom  it  is,  it  is,"  he  adds  elsewhere  in  German,  "  whom  it 
hits,  him  it  hits."3  God  permits  at  times  even  the  elect  to  be 
reduced,  as  it  were,  to  nothingness,4  but  only  in  order  that  His 
sole  power  may  be  made  manifest  and  that  it  may  quench  all 
proud  boasting  ;  for  man  is  so  ready  to  believe  that  he  can  by  the 
exercise  of  his  free  will  rise  again,  and  waxes  presumptuous ;  but 
here  he  learns  that  grace  exalts  him  before  and  above  every 
choice  of  his  own  ("  ante  omne  arbitrium  et  supra  arbitrium 
suum  ").& 

We  shall  not  here  examine  more  closely  his  grave  mis- 
apprehension of  the  teaching  of  the  Apostle  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  on  which  he  tries  to  prop  up  his  glaring 
theory  concerning  predestination.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  the 
principal  passage  to  which  he  refers  (Rom.  ix.  11  ff.),  accord- 
ing to  the  exegetist  Cornely,  is  not  now  taken  by  any 
expositor  to  refer  to  predestination,  i.e.  to  the  selection  by 
grace  of  each  individual.6  The  passage  treats  of  the  promises 
made  to  the  Jewish  people  (as  a  whole)  which  were  given 
without  desert  and  freely  ;  but  Israel,  as  St.  Paul  explains, 
has,  by  its  fault,  rendered  itself  unworthy  of  the  same  and 
excluded  itself  (as  a  whole)  from  the  salvation  which  the 
heathen  obtain  by  faith- — a  reward  of  Israel's  misdeeds, 
which,  in  itself,  is  incompatible  with  Luther's  doctrine  of 
an  undeserved  predestination  to  hell.7 

Luther  also  quotes  St.  Augustine,  but  does  not  interpret 
him  correctly.  He  even  overlooks  the  fact  that  this  Father, 
in  one  of  the  passages  alleged,  says  the  very  opposite  to  his 
new  ideas  on  unconditional  predestination  to  hell,  and 
attributes  in  every  case  the  fate  of  the  damned  to  their  own 
moral  misdeeds.  Augustine  says,  in  his  own  profound, 
concise  way,  in  the  text  quoted  by  Luther  :  "  the  saved 

1  "  Schol.  Rom."  2  Ibid.,  pp.  227,  228. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  224.  *  Ibid.,  p.  229. 

6  Ibid.,  231. 

8  "  Commentar.  in.  Ep.  ad  Romanes,"  p.  495. 

7  Formerly  some  few  Catholic  theologians  found  in  the  statements 
of  the  Apostle   the  so-called  "  prcedestinatio  ad  gloriam  ante  prcevisa 
merita"  (though  never  a  "  reprobatio  ante  prcevisa  merita");  but  as 
J.  Th.  Beelen  remarks  in  his  "  Commentarius  in  Ep.  ad  Romanoa  " 
(1854),  none  of  them  ever  sought  for  an  exegetical  foundation  for  the 
same.    Cornely,  I.e.,  p.  495  aq. 


196  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

may  not  pride  himself  on  his  merits,  and  the  damned  may 
only  bewail  his  demerits."1  In  his  meditations  on  the  ever- 
inscrutable  mystery  he  regards  the  sinner's  fault  as  entirely 
voluntary,  and  his  revolt  against  the  eternal  God  as,  on 
this  account,  worthy  of  eternal  damnation.  Augustine 
teaches  that  "  to  him  as  to  every  man  who  comes  into  this 
world  "  salvation  was  offered  with  a  wealth  of  means  of 
grace  and  with  all  the  merits  of  Christ's  bitter  death  on  the 
cross.2 

Luther  also  quoted  the  Bible  passages  regarding  God's 
will  for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  but  only  in  order  to  say  of 
them  :  "  such  expressions  are  always  to  be  understood 
exclusively  of  the  elect."  It  is  merely  "  wisdom  of  the 
flesh  "  to  attempt  to  find  a  will  of  God  that  all  men  be  saved 
in  the  assurance  of  St.  Paul :  "  God  wills  that  all  men 
shall  be  saved  "  (1  Tim.  ii.  4),  or  "  in  the  passages  which 
say,  that  He  gave  His  Son  for  us,  that  He  created  man  for 
eternal  life,  and  that  everything  was  created  for  man,  but 
man  for  God  that  he  might  enjoy  Him  eternally."3 

Other  objections  which  Luther  makes  he  sets  aside  with  the 
same  facility  by  a  reference  to  the  thoughts  he  has  developed 
above.4  Thus  the  first  :  Why  did  God  give  to  man  free  will  by 
means  of  which  he  can  merit  either  reward  or  punishment  ?  His 
answer  is  :  Where  is  this  free  will  ?  Man  has  no  free  will  for 
doing  what  is  good.  Then  a  second  objection  :  "  God  damns  no 
one  without  sin,  and  he  who  is  forced  to  sin  is  damned  unjustly." 
The  answer  to  this  is  new  :  God  ordains  it  so  that  those  who  are 
to  be  damned  are  gladly,  even  though  of  necessity,  in  sin  ("  dat 
voluntarie  velle  in  peccato  esse  et  manere  et  diligere  iniquitatem  "). 
Finally,  the  last  objection  :  "  Why  does  God  give  them  com- 
mandments which  He  does  not  will  them  to  keep,  yea  hardens 
their  will  so  much  that  they  desire  to  act  contrary  to  the  law  ? 
Is  not  God  in  this  case  the  cause  of  their  sinning  and  being 
damned  ?  "  "  Yes,  that  is  the  difficulty,"  he  admits,  "  which,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  has  the  most  force ;  it  is  the  weightiest  of  all. 
But  to  it  the  Apostle  makes  a  special  answer  when  he  teaches  : 
God  so  wills  it,  and  God  Who  thus  wills,  is  not  evil.  Everything 
is  His,  just  as  the  clay  belongs  to  the  potter  and  waits  on  his 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  230,  and  August.,  "Enchiridion  ad  Laurent.," 
c.  98,  Migne,  P.  L.,  xl.,  p.  278. 

2  S.  Aug.,  "Contra  lulianum,"  6,  n.  8,  14,  24;   "Opus  imperf.," 
1,  c,  64,    c.   132   seq.,    175:    "  De    catechiz.    rudibus,"    n.    52;    "  De 
spiritu  et  litt.,"  c.  33  ;    "  Retract,"  1,  c.  10,  n.  2.    Cp.  Comely,  p.  494, 
on  some  exegetical  peculiarities  of  Augustine. 

3  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  212. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  213. 


"DROP   THE    'MY'  197 

service."  Enough,  he  continues,  "  God  commands  that  the  elect 
shall  be  saved,  and  that  those  who  are  destined  for  hell  shall  be 
entangled  in  evil  in  order  that  He  may  show  forth  His  mercy 
and  also  His  anger." 

It  makes  one  shudder  to  hear  how  he  cuts  short  the  sighs  of 
the  unhappy  soul  which  sees  itself  a  victim  of  God's  harshness. 
It  complains  :  "  It  is  a  hard  and  bitter  lot  that  God  should  seek 
His  honour  in  my  misery  !  "  And  Luther  replies  :  "  See,  there 
we  have  the  wisdom  of  the  flesh  !  My  misery  ;  '  my,'  '  my,'  that 
is  the  voice  of  the  flesh.  Drop  the  '  my  '  and  say  :  Be  Thou 
honoured,  O  Lord.  ...  So  long  as  you  do  not  do  that,  you  are 
seeking  your  own  will  more  than  the  will  of  God.  We  must  judge 
of  God  in  a  different  manner  from  that  in  which  we  judge  of  man. 
God  owes  no  man  anything." 

"  With  this  hard  doctrine,"  he  concludes,  "  the  knife  is  placed 
at  the  throat  of  holiness-by-works  and  fleshly  wisdom  and  there- 
fore the  flesh  is  naturally  incensed,  and  breaks  out  into  blas- 
phemies ;  but  man  must  learn  that  his  salvation  does  not  depend 
upon  his  acts,  but  that  it  lies  quite  outside  of  him,  namely,  in 
God,  Who  has  chosen  him." 

He  attempts,  however,  to  mingle  softer  tones  with  the  voices 
of  despair,  which,  he  admits,  these  theories  have  let  loose.  This 
he  can  only  do  at  the  expense  of  his  own  teaching,  or  by  fining  it 
down.  He  says  :  whoever  is  terrified  and  confused,  but  then 
tries  to  abandon  himself  with  indifference  to  the  severity  of  God, 
he,  let  this  be  his  comfort,  is  not  of  the  number  of  those  pre- 
destined to  hell.  For  only  those  who  are  really  to  be  rejected  are 
not  afraid  [?],  "  they  pay  no  heed  to  the  danger  and  say,  if  I  am 
to  be  damned,  so  be  it  !"  On  the  other  hand,  confusion  and  fear 
are  signs  of  the  "  spiritus  contribulatus,"  which,  according  to  his 
promise,  God  never  rejects  (Ps.  1.). 

After  all,  then,  we  are  forced  to  ask,  according  to  this,  is  not 
man  to  be  saved  by  his  own  act,  namely,  the  act  of  heroic  indiffer- 
ence to  his  eternity  ?  For  this  act  remains  an  act  of  man  : 
"  Whoever  is  filled  with  the  fear  of  God,  and,  taking  courage, 
throws  and  precipitates  himself  into  the  truth  of  the  promises  of 
God,  he  will  be  saved,  and  be  one  of  the  elect."1 


3.  The  Fight  against  "  Holiness-by- Works  "  and  the 
Observantines  in  the  Commentary  on  Komans 

His  ideas  on  predestination  were  not  the  direct  cause  of 
Luther's  belittling  of  human  effort  and  the  value  of  good 
works  ;  the  latter  tendency  was  present  in  him  previous 
to  his  adoption  of  rigid  predestinarianism  ;  nor  does  he 
ever  attribute  to  election  by  grace  any  diminution  of  man's 
powers  or  duties,  whether  in  the  case  of  the  chosen  or  of  the 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  212  ff. 


198  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

reprobate.  The  same  commandments  are  given  to  those 
whom  God's  terrible  decree  has  destined  for  hell  as  to  the 
elect ;  they  possess  the  same  human  abilities,  the  same 
weaknesses.  It  was  not  predestination  which  led  him  in 
the  first  instance  to  attribute  such  strength  to  concupiscence 
in  man,  and  to  invest  it,  as  he  ultimately  did,  with  an 
actually  sinful  and  culpable  character. 

His  ideas  concerning  the  absolute  corruption  of  the 
children  of  Adam,  even  to  the  extinction  of  any  liberty  in 
the  doing  of  what  is  good,  had  another  origin,  and,  in  their 
development,  were  influenced  far  more  by  false  mysticism 
than  by  the  predestinarian  delusion. 

He  approached  the  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
in  the  conviction  that,  in  this  Epistle,  he  would  find  the 
sanction  of  his  earlier  efforts  against  the  self-righteous  and 
"  holy-by-works,"  against  whom  his  peculiar  mysticism  had 
still  further  prejudiced  him.  From  the  very  outset  he  inter- 
prets the  great  Apostolic  document  on  the  calling  of  the 
heathen  and  the  Jews  to  salvation  as  directed  exclusively 
against  those  who,  according  to  him,  were  imperilling  the 
Church  ;  against  those  who  (whether  in  his  own  Order  or 
in  Christendom  generally)  laid  stress  on  the  importance  of 
works,  on  the  duty  of  fulfilling  observances  and  the  merit 
of  exercises  of  virtue  for  gaining  heaven,  and  who  were 
unmindful  of  the  righteousness  which  Christ  gives  us.  This 
is  not  the  place  to  point  out  how  Paul  is  speaking  in  quite 
another  sense,  against  those  Jewish  Christians  who  still 
adhered  to  the  works  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  of  the  merely 
relative  value  of  works,  of  the  liberty  which  Christianity 
imparts  and  of  the  saving  power  of  faith. 

Luther,  however,  in  the  very  first  lines,  tells  the  "  holy-by- 
works  "  that  the  whole  purpose  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
is  a  driving  back  and  rooting  out  of  the  wisdom  and  righteous- 
ness of  the  flesh.  Among  the  heathen  and  the  Jews  were  to  be 
found  those  who,  though  "  devoted  in  their  hearts  to  virtue," 
yet  had  not  suppressed  all  self-satisfaction  in  the  same,  and 
looked  upon  themselves  as  "  righteous  and  good  men  "  ;  in  the 
Church,  according  to  Paul,  all  self-righteousness  and  wisdom 
must  be  torn  out  of  the  affections,  and  self-complacency.  God 
willed  to  save  us  not  by  our  own  righteousness  but  by  an  ex- 
traneous righteousness  ("now  per  domesticam  sed  per  extraneam 
iustitiam  vult  salvare  "),  viz.  by  the  imputed  righteousness  of 
Christ,  and,  owing  to  the  exterior  righteousness  which  Christ 
gives  ("  externa  quce  ex  Christo  in  ndbis  est  institia  "),  there  can  be 


THE  OBSERVANTINE  "PIG-MARKET"  199 

no  boasting,  nor  must  there  be  "  any  depression  on  account  of 
the  sufferings  and  trials  which  come  to  us  from  Christ."1 

"  Christ's  righteousness  and  His  gifts,"  he  says,  "  shine  in  the 
true  Christian.  ...  If  any  man  possesses  natural  and  spiritual 
advantages,  yet  this  is  not  considered  by  God  as  being  his 
wisdom,  righteousness  and  goodness  ('  non  idea  coram  Deo  tails 
reputatur '),  rather,  he  must  wait  in  humility,  as  though  he 
possessed  nothing,  for  the  pure  mercy  of  God,  to  see  whether  He 
will  look  upon  him  as  righteous  and  wise.  God  only  does  this  if  he 
humbles  himself  deeply.  We  must  learn  to  regard  spiritual 
possessions  and  works  of  righteousness  as  worthless  for  obtaining 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  we  must  renounce  the  idea  that  these 
have  any  value  in  God's  sight  and  merit  a  reward,  otherwise  we 
shall  not  be  saved  "  ("  opera  iusta  velint  nihil  reputare,"  etc.).2 

Any  pretext,  or  even  none  at  all,  serves  to  bring  him 
back  again  and  again  in  the  work  to  the  "  Pelagian-minded 
iustitiarii."  It  is  possible  that  amongst  these  the  "  Ob- 
servantines  "  ranked  first.  Our  thoughts  revert  to  those 
of  his  brother  monks,  whose  cause  he  had  at  first  defended 
in  the  internal  struggle  within  the  Congregation,  only  to 
turn  on  them  unmercifully  afterwards.  On  one  occasion 
he  mentions  by  name  the  "  Observants,"  reproaching  them 
with  trying  to  outshine  one  another  in  their  zeal  for  God, 
while  at  the  same  time  they  had  no  love  of  their  neighbour, 
whereas,  according  to  the  passage  he  is  just  expounding, 
"  the  fulness  of  the  law  is  love."3  He  would  also  appear 
to  be  referring  to  them,  when,  on  another  occasion,  he  rails 
at  such  monks,  who  by  their  behaviour  bring  their  whole 
profession  into  disgrace. 

"  They  exalt  themselves  against  other  members  of  their 
profession,"  he  cries,  "  as  though  they  were  clean  and  had 
no  evil  odour  about  them,"4  and  continues  in  the  style  of 
his  monastic  discourse  on  the  "  Little  Saints  "  mentioned 
above  (p.  69  f .).  "  And  yet  before,  behind  and  within  they 
are  a  pig-market  and  sty  of  sows  .  .  .  they  wish  to  withdraw 
from  the  rest,  whereas  they  ought,  were  they  really  virtuous, 
to  help  them  to  conceal  their  faults.  But  in  place  of  patient 
succour  there  is  nothing  in  them  but  peevishness  and  a  desire 
to  be  far  away  ('  qucerunt  fugam  .  .  .  tediosi  sunt  et  nolunt 
esse  in  communione  aliorum ').  They  will  not  serve  those 
who  are  good  for  nothing  nor  be  their  companions  ;  they 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  1  ff.  2  Ibid,,  p.  2  f. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  305.     "  Observantes  inincem  propter  Deum  pugnant,  sed 
dilectionis  prceceptum  nihil  attendunt." 

4  Ibid.,  p.  334.    Correct  what  follows,  from  vol.  vi.,  xlii,  4. 


200  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

only  desire  to  be  the  superiors  and  companions  of  the 
worthy,  the  perfect  and  the  sound.  Therefore  they  run 
from  one  place  to  another."1 

The  struggle  of  which  this  is  a  picture  continued  among 
the  German  Augustinians.  In  the  spring,  1520,  a  similar 
conflict  broke  out  in  the  Cologne  Province,  one  side  having 
the  sympathy  of  the  Roman  Conventuals.2  We  can  well 
understand  how  the  General  of  the  Order  in  Rome  was  not 
disposed  to  grant  the  exemptions  claimed  by  the  Observan- 
tines  of  the  Saxon  Congregation  against  his  own  Provincials. 

Luther  brandishes  his  sharp  blade  against  the  "  spiritually 
minded,  the  proud,  the  stiff-necked,  who  seek  peace  in  works  and 
in  the  flesh,  the  iustitiarii,"3  without  making  any  sharp  distinction 
between  the  actual  Observan tines  and  the  "  self-righteous." 

1  Cp.  above,  p.  88  ff.,  Luther's  letter  to  Spenlein,  who  had  left  his 
monastery  for  that  at  Memmingen. 

2  Kolde,  "  Die  deutsche  Augustinerkongregation,"  p.  325. 

3  "  Schol.    Rom.,"    p.    20,    he   speaks   against   the    "  spiritualis   et 
subtilior  idolatria  "  ;    p.  45,  against  those  who  are  "  vane  gloriosi  "  in 
their  exterior  observances  ;    p.  75,  against  the  "  nimis  iusli,"  "  nimis 
intelligentes  "  and  "  nimis  queer  entes,"  who  are  "  incorrigibiles  in  suo 
sensu  "  ;    p.  83,  a  fresh  outburst  against  those  who   "  in  suis   iustitiis 
pacem  in  came,  queer  unt."  ..."  Nihil  capiunt  quia  sunt  superbi.  .  .   . 
Prcesumunt  quod  Deus  eorum  sensum  et  opera  approbabit,  quia  ipsis 
iustus  et  rectus  apparet  "  ;    p.  86,  he  again  attacks  "omnes  superbi  in 
ecdesia  spirituales,  qui  sunt  magnorum  et  multorum  operum."     Then, 
to  omit  many  digressions  against  the   "  iustitiarii,"   and  merely  to 
quote  from  the  last  part  of  the  work,  he  says,  p.  220,  of  the  righteous 
in  his  own  sense  by  whom  damnation  would  be  willingly  accepted 
("  libentes  damnari  volunt"),  that  they  shame  the  swarm  of  others, 
"  qui  sibi  merita  fingunt  et  pingunt  ac  bona  queer unt,  fugiunt  mala  et  in 
absconditis  suis  nihil  habent  "  ;   these  are,  according  to  p.  221,  "  superbi 
iustitiarii,  qui  certi  sunt  de  bonis  operibus  suis,"  or,  according  to  p.  273, 
those    "  in   sua   iustitia   prcesumentes."  *  The    "  sapientes   iustitiarii," 
according  to  p.  331,  destroy  the  temple  of  God  by  their  false  wisdom 
and  their  observances. 

Superintendent  H.  Hering  has  expressed  himself  candidly  in  the 
"  Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken  "  (50,  1877,  p.  627)  on  certain 
notable  passages  in  Luther's  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  :  "  His 
anger,"  so  he  says,  "  is  almost  more  vehement  against  the  Obser- 
vantines  than  against  the  heretics  "  ;  to  their  claim  to  exemptions 
and  dispensations  Luther  opposes  the  assertion  that  it  is  impossible 
to  dispense  from  obedience.  He  refers,  among  other  passages  of 
Luther's,  to  the  beginning  of  his  interpretation  of  Psalm  xxxi.  ("  Beati 
quorum  remissce,"  etc.),  where  apparently  the  Observantines  are 
denounced  as  schismatics  on  account  of  their  opposition  to  Staupitz 
and  his  plans  :  "  similiter  et  superstitiosi  seu  schismatici  abiiciunt  per 
suam  singularitatem  suum  prcelatum,  in  quo  Christus  eis  prceficitur, 
quorum  hodie  maior  est  numerus  (quam  hcereticorum)."  "  Werke," 
Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  174.  In  earlier  passages  (3,  p.  172)  he  speaks  against 
those  who,  in  the  singularity  of  their  observances,  "  reiecta  obedientia 
et  fide  suam  statuunt  iustitiam  "  and  declares  them,  on  account  of  their 


THE    "JUSTICIARIES"  201 

With  regard  to  himself,  he  admits  that  he  is  so  antagonistic 
to  the  "  iustitiarii,"  that  he  is  opposed  to  all  scrupulous  observ- 
ance of  "  iustitia,"  to  all  regulations  and  strict  ordinances  : 

pride,  to  be  deniers  of  Christ,  and  (p.  61)  against  the  upholders  of 
special  statutes  who  fight  for  their  ceremonies  and  their  "  vanitas 
observantice  exterioris,"  who  "  compunguntur  in  ha,bitu,"  etc.  We  seem 
to  hear  echoes  of  the  struggle  that  was  going  on  in  the  Order  not  only 
in  the  passages  from  the  sermons  quoted  above  (p.  80  ff.),  but  also  in 
such  as  the  following,  from  the  year  1516  :  These  "  iustitiarii  "  are 
"  irritabilissimi  omnium  "  ;  they  are  "  prompti  alias  vindicare  .  .  . 
iudicare,  condemnare,  qucerulantes  et  accusantes,  quod  iniuriam  sus- 
tineant,  ipsi  recte  facientes  "  ;  but  "  they  do  not  fulfil  the  spirit  of  the 
law"  ("  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  160;  cp.  158  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  114). 
He  puts  in  the  mouth  of  the  "  iustitiarii  "  :  "  Tu  peius  vims  quam 
ego,"  and  describes  how  they  fancy  themselves  quite  safe  and  have  no 
need  of  Christ  as  their  physician  (ibid.,  p.  128  ;  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  85). 
He  had  already  accused  them  above  of  disobedience  and  rebellion, 
and  his  charging  them  with  revolt  against  their  lawful  superior 
("  abiiciunt  per  suam  singularitatem  suum  prcelatum")  leads  one  to  sup- 
pose he  had  in  view  the  opposition  of  the  Observantines  to  Staupitz's 
plans.  We  may  perhaps  find  in  these  passages  reason  for  applying 
the  attacks  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans  to  the  Erfurt  Observan- 
tines, though  there  is  no  actual  proof  of  this. 

Does  not  Staupitz  himself,  who  was  Vicar- General  of  the  Congrega- 
tion, in  certain  of  his  works  (published  after  1515)  sometimes  oppose 
the  spirit  of  the  Observantines,  such  as  it  appears  to  him  ?  Cp.  Braun, 
"  Concupiscenz,"  p.  68  ff.  It  would  be  surprising  if  no  echo  of  a  con- 
flict which  touched  him  so  nearly  had  obtruded  itself  into  his  writings. 
Unfortunately  historical  data  regarding  the  external  progress  of  the 
breach  are  wanting.  Braun  fully  recognises  Luther's  alienation  and 
that  it  had  grounds  ;  thus  of  Luther's  cutting  address  delivered  before 
the  Chapter  of  the  Order  at  Gotha  on  May  1,  1515,  he  says  :  "It  is 
obvious  that  sad  experiences  lay  behind  these  words.  .  .  .  The  tendency 
to  quarrelsomeness,  which,  it  cannot  be  denied,  was  apparent  in  Luther 
at  a  later  date — though  much  may  be  said  in  excuse  of  it — may  have 
made  itself  felt  even  then,  long  before  his  breach  with  the  Church." 
The  "  primaria  nostrce  unionis  /actio,"  wrhich  Barthol.  Usingen  men- 
tions (see  N.  Paulus,  "  Usingen,"  p.  16,  n.  5,  and  Oergel,  "Der  junge 
Luther,"  p.  132),  brought  Luther's  friend,  Johann  Lang,  in  the  summer 
of  1511  from  Erfurt  to  Wittenberg.  He  joined  Luther  in  passing  over 
from  the  stricter  to  the  more  liberal  party  supported  by  Staupitz. 
For  Cochlseus's  statement  regarding  Luther  :  "  ad  Staupitzium  defecit," 
see  above,  p.  38.  The  relations  existing  between  the  Observantines 
and  the  Conventuals,  even  among  other  Orders  where  a  similar  move- 
ment towards  reform  was  taking  place,  are  instructive.  There  was, 
for  instance,  a  division  hi  the  Dominican  Order.  The  Observantine 
priories  of  the  so-called  German  Province  of  the  Dominicans  (prov, 
teutonica) — as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Province  of  South  Germany — 
were  permitted  to  choose  a  Provincial,  while  the  Conventual  priories 
formed  a  special  German  Congregation  (congregatio  Germanica),  with 
a  Vicar-General  at  their  head.  Since  1511  Johann  Faber  had  been 
Vicar-General,  but  he  too  was  in  favour  of  a  reform.  The  cause  of 
the  conflict  in  this  case  arose  from  the  Observantines  trying  to  bring 
the  Conventuals  to  their  way  of  thinking  by  appealing  to  ecclesiastical 
and  secular  authority.  Cp.  N.  Paulus  in  the  "  Histor.  Jahrbuch," 
17,  1896,  p.  44,  and  in  "  Die  deutschen  Dominikaner  im  Kampfe  gegen 
Luther,"  1903,  p.  299. 


202  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

"  The  very  word  righteousness  vexes  me  :  if  anyone  were  to  steal 
from  me,  it  would  hurt  me  less  than  being  obliged  to  listen  to  the 
word  righteousness.  It  is  a  word  which  the  jurists  always  have 
on  their  lips,  but  there  is  no  more  unlearned  race  than  these  men 
of  the  law,  save,  perhaps,  the  men  of  good  intention  and  superior 
reason  ( '  bonce-intentionarii  seu  sublimates,  rationis  ' )  ;  for  I  have 
experienced  both  in  myself  and  in  others,  that  when  we  were 
righteous,  God  mocked  at  us."1 

4.  Attack  on  Predisposition  to  Good  and  on  Free  Will 

The  assertion  of  the  complete  corruption  of  human  nature 
owing  to  the  continuance  of  original  sin  and  the  inex- 
tinguishable tinder  of  concupiscence,  arose  from  the  above- 
mentioned  position  which  Luther  had  taken  up  with  regard 
to  self-righteousness. 

Man  remains,  according  to  what  Luther  says  in  the 
Commentary  on  Romans,  in  spite  of  all  his  veneer  of  good 
works,  so  alienated  from  God  that  he  "  does  not  love  but 
hates  the  law  which  forces  him  to  what  is  good  and  forbids 
what  is  evil ;  his  will,  far  from  seeking  the  law,  detests  it. 
Nature  persists  in  its  evil  desires  contrary  to  the  law ;  it  is 
always  full  of  evil  concupiscence  when  it  is  not  assisted 
from  above."  This  concupiscence,  however,  is  sin.  Every- 
thing that  is  good  is  due  only  to  grace,  and  grace  must 
bring  us  to  acknowledge  this  and  to  "  seek  Christ  humbly 
and  so  be  saved."2 

The  descriptions  of  human  doings  which  the  author  gives 
us  in  eloquent  language  are  not  wanting  in  fidelity  and  truth 
to  nature,  though  we  cannot  approve  his  inferences.  He  has 
a  keen  eye  on  others  and  is  unmerciful  in  his  delineation  of 
the  faults  which  he  perceived  in  the  pious  people  around 
him. 

He  spies  out  many  who  only  act  from  a  desire  for  the  praise  of 
men,  and  who  wish  to  appear,  but  not  really  to  be,  good.  How 
ready  are  such,  he  says,  to  depreciate  themselves  with  apparent 
humility.  Others  only  do  what  is  right  because  it  gives  them 
pleasure,  i.e.  from  inclination  and  without  any  higher  motive. 
Others  do  it  from  vain  self-complacency  ;  yea,  selfishness  is 
present  in  almost  all,  and  mars  their  works.  Outward  routine 
and  a  business-like  righteousness  spoils  a  great  deal.  It  is  to  be 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  273.     With  the  above  is  connected  the  fact 
that  in  his  mysticism  he  peremptorily  demands  the  surrender  of  all 
rights  and  privileges. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  46. 


"NON  CONCUPISCES  "  203 

deplored  that,  like  the  Pharisees,  they  only  keep  what  is  com- 
manded in  view  and  long  for  the  rewards  of  a  busy  and  petty 
virtue. l 

In  such  descriptions  he  is  easily  carried  too  far  and  is  some- 
times even  obviously  unjust.  Thus,  for  instance,  of  evil  practices 
he  makes  conscious  theories,  in  order  the  more  readily  to  gain 
the  upper  hand  of  his  adversaries.  "  They  teach,"  he  cries,  "  that 
it  is  only  necessary  to  keep  the  law  by  works  and  not  with  the 
heart  .  .  .  their  efforts  are  not  accompanied  with  the  least 
inward  effort,  everything  is  wholly  external."2 

In  respect  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  and  its  conse- 
quences in  man,  he  not  only  magnifies  enormously  the 
strength  of  the  concupiscence  which  remains  after  baptism, 
without  sufficiently  taking  into  account  the  spiritual  means 
by  which  it  can  be  repressed,  but  gives  the  most  open  ex- 
pression to  his  belief  that  concupiscence  is  actually  sin  ;  it 
is  the  persistence  of  original  sin,  rendering  every  man  actually 
culpable,  even  without  any  consent  of  the  will.  The  "  Non 
concupisces "  of  the  Ten  Commandments — which  the 
Apostle  emphasises  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  though 
in  another  sense — Luther  makes  out  to  be  such  a  pro- 
hibition that,  by  the  mere  existence  of  concupiscence,  it  is 
daily  and  hourly  sinfully  transgressed.  He  pays  no  atten- 
tion to  the  theology  of  the  Church,  which  had  hitherto  seen 
in  the  "  Non  concupisces  "  a  prohibition  of  any  voluntary 
consent  to  a  concupiscence  existing  without  actual  sin. 

His  attack  on  free  will  is  very  closely  bound  up  with  his 
ideas  on  concupiscence. 

"  Concupiscence  with  weakness  is  against  the  law  '  Thou  shalt 
not  covet,'  and  it  is  deadly  [a  mortal  sin],  but  the  gracious  God 
does  not  impute  it  on  account  of  the  work  of  salvation  which 
has  been  commenced  in  [pardoned]  man."  "  Even  a  venial 
sin,"  he  teaches  in  the  same  passage,  "  is,  according  to  its  nature 
[owing  to  human  nature  which  is  entirely  alienated  from  God],  a 
mortal  sin,  but  the  Creator  does  not  impute  ('imputat')  it  as 
mortal  sin  to  the  man  whom  he  chooses  to  perfect  and  render 
whole."3 

He  makes  various  attempts  to  deduce  from  concupiscence  the 
absolute  want  in  the  will  of  freedom  to  do  what  is  good.  There 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  pp.  11,  45,  84,  94. 

2  The  reader  should  notice  his  exaggerations  regarding  the  teachers 
of  whose  nominalistic  tendency  he  disapproves  :    "  decent,  quod   lex 
opere    tantum   sit   implenda,    etiam   sine   impletione    cordis.  .  .  .  Nee 
ipsi  minima  saltern  cordis  conatu  eadem  aggrediuntur,  sed  solummodo 
externo  opere."     Ibid.,  p.  45. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  332. 


204  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  he  does  deny  this  freedom,  though, 
on  the  other  hand,  he  grants  so  much  to  liberty  in  his  admo- 
nitions concerning  predestination  (see  below,  p.  219)  that  he 
practically  retracts  his  denial.  The  position  he  takes  up  with 
regard  to  grace  ought  to  be  a  test  of  what  he  actually  held  :  did 
he  look  upon  grace  as  in  every  case  irresistible  ?  But  on  this  very 
point  he  is  as  yet  indisposed  to  commit  himself  as  he  will  not 
hesitate  to  do  later,  to  a  positive,  erroneous  "  yes."  In  short, 
though  he  stands  for  a  denial  of  liberty,  he  has  not  yet  seen  his 
way  to  solve  all  the  difficulties. 

If  we  seek  some  specimens  illustrating  the  course  of  his  ideas 
regarding  lack  of  liberty,  we  find,  perhaps,  the  strongest  utterance 
in  his  comments  on  Romans  viii.  28  :  "  Free  will  apart  from 
grace  possesses  absolutely  no  power  for  righteousness,  it  is 
necessarily  in  sin.  Therefore  St.  Augustine  in  his  book  against 
Julian  terms  it  '  rather  an  enslaved  than  a  free  will.'  But  after 
the  obtaining  of  grace  it  becomes  really  free,  at  least  as  far  as 
salvation  is  concerned.  The  will  is,  it  is  true,  free  by  nature, 
but  only  for  what  comes  within  its  province,  not  for  what  is 
above  it,  being  bound  in  the  chain  of  sin  and  therefore  unable 
to  choose  what  is  good  in  God's  sight."1  Here  Luther  makes  no 
distinction  between  natural  and  supernatural  good,  but  excludes 
both  from  our  choice  ;  in  fact  there  is  no  such  thing  as  natural 
goodness,  for  what  nature  performs  alone  is  only  sin. 

"  Where  is  our  righteousness,"  he  exclaims  rhetorically  some 
pages  before  this,  "  where  are  our  works,  where  is  the  liberty  of 
choice,  where  the  presupposed  '  contingens  '  (see  above,  p.  193)  ? 
This  is  what  must  be  preached,  this  is  the  way  to  bring  the 
wisdom  of  the  flesh  to  the  dust !  The  Apostle  does  so  here.  In 
former  passages  he  cut  off  its  hands,  its  feet,  its  tongue  ;  here 
he  seizes  it  [the  wisdom  of  the  flesh  which  speaks  in  defence  of 
free  will]  and  makes  an  end  of  it.  Here,  like  a  flash  of  light,  it  is 
seen  to  possess  nothing  in  itself,  all  its  possession  being  in  God."2 
This,  then,  is  Luther's  conclusion  :  the  elect  are  not  saved  by 
the  co-operation  of  their  free  will,  but  by  the  Divine  decree  ;  not 
by  their  merits,  but  by  the  unalterable  edict  from  above  by  means 
of  which  they  conquer  all  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  salvation. 
He  is  silent  here  as  to  whether  the  elect  may  not  succumb  to  sin 
temporarily,  either  by  the  misuse  of  liberty,  or  from  lack  of  com- 
pelling grace.  . 

Towards  the  end  of  the  Commentary  he  asserts  quite  definitely 
that  we  are  unable  to  formulate  even  a  good  intention  with  our 
human  powers  which  could  in  any  way  [even  in  the  natural  order] 
be  pleasing  to  God. 

He  here  examines  certain  opponents,  who  rightly  denied  this 

1  The  passage  here  referred  to  in  St.  Aug.  is  in  "  Contra  lulianum," 
1.  8,  c.  8  ;   Migne,  P.  L.  xliv.,  p.  689.    Augustine  there  when  he  speaks 
of  "  scrvum  potius  quam  liberum  arbitrium  "  does  so  in  another  sense, 
though  Luther  saw  fit  to  borrow  the  expression  for  the  title  of  his  own 
later  work  of  1525  :    "  De  servo  arbitrio." 

2  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  209. 


MAN'S    INCAPACITY  205 

liability,  "  otherwise  man  would  be  forced  to  sin."  Further  on 
he  attributes  to  all  theologians  the  teaching  of  the  Occamists 
(see  above,  p.  75)  :  "  therewith  we  receive  without  fail  the 
infusion  of  God's  grace  "  ;  a  proposition  which  certainly  sounds 
Pelagian.  He  passes  over  one  point  which  true  scholastic  theo- 
logians did  not  omit,  viz.  that  God's  supernatural  assistance 
"  prevents  "  our  natural  will,  raises  the  same  into  the  order  of 
grace,  and  thus  enables  us  to  merit  salvation.  Further,  again 
disregarding  the  scholastic  teaching,  he  foists  upon  all  theologians 
the  idea  that,  having  once  formed  our  intention,  "  we  need  have 
no  further  anxiety,  or  trouble  ourselves  to  invoke  God's  grace."1 
Such  is,  according  to  him,  the  position  of  his  opponents. 

In  his  answer  he  does  not  assert,  as  regards  the  first  pro- 
position, that  God  forces  us  to  evil  ;  "  the  wicked,"  he  says,  "  do 
what  they  wish,  perhaps  even  with  good  intentions,  but  God 
allows  them  to  sin  even  in  their  good  works."  Of  this,  according 
to  him,  his  opponents  must  be  aware  and  therefore  ought  not  to 
act  with  so  much  assurance  and  certainty  as  though  they  were 
really  performing  good  works.  Everyone  should  rather  say  : 
"  Who  knows  whether  God's  grace  is  working  this  in  me  ?  " 
Then  only  does  man  acknowledge  "  that  he  can  do  nothing  of 
himself  "  ;  only  thus  can  we  escape  Pelagianism,  which  is  the 
curse  of  the  self-righteous.  "  But  because  they  are  persuaded 
that  it  is  always  within  their  power  to  do  what  they  can,  and 
therefore  also  to  possess  grace  [here  he  is  utilising  some  of  the 
real  weaknesses  of  Occamism],  therefore  they  do  nothing  but  sin 
all  the  time  in  their  assurance."2 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  322. 

2  Ibid.,    p.    323.      In    connection    with    the    proposition     at    the 
commencement  of  this  division  :   "  Man  can  of  himself  do  nothing," 
Luther  attacks  the  mediaeval  theological  axiom  :    "  Facienti  quod  est 
in  se,  Deus  non  denegat  gratiam  "  (in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms, 
Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  262,  he  already  gives  it  as  :    "  Deus  infallibiliter  dot 
gratiam,  ").    In  order  to  make  the  matter  clear  we  may  state  in  advance 
that,  according  to  Catholic  doctrine,  we  cannot  with  the  powers  of 
nature  merit  grace  either  "  de  condigno  "   or  "  de  congruo  "  ;    grace 
excludes  any  natural  acquiring  of  the  same  ;    man  is  only  able  to 
dispose  himself  negatively  for  the  acquisition  of  grace,  not  positively, 
i.e.  not  in  such  a  way  as  to  demand  grace  as  a  right.     "  Homo  non 
movet  se  ipsum  ad  hoc,  quod  adipiscatur  divinum  auxilium,  quod  supra 
ipsum  est,  sed  potius  ad  hoc  adipiscendum  a  Deo  movetur."     Thorn., 
"  Summa  contra  gent.,"  3,  c.  149.    In  accordance  with  this,  true  Scholas- 
ticism  did  not   and   could  not   wish   to   express  by  the  proposition 
"  Facienti  quod  est  in  se,"  etc.,  any  real  meriting  of  grace  by  our 
natural  powers.     Luther's  attacks,  which  presuppose  this,  were  there- 
fore of  no  avail  against  the  true  theology  of  the  Middle  Ages.     The 
natural  acts  recognised  by  theology  as  good  are  generally  unimportant, 
have  no  supernatural  merit,  and  cannot  positively  qualify  for  grace 
in  the  sense  of  "  Facienti,  etc."    The  axiom  implies  rather  that  whoever 
does  his  part,  roused  and  moved  thereto  by  actual  grace,  will  arrive 
at  saving  grace  and  reach  heaven  ;    it  presupposes  a  negative  pre- 
paration ;    God  in  His  mercy  does  not  refuse  His  grace  to  whoever 
does  his  part.    It  was  therefore  presumed  that  the  actual  grace  of  God 
was  at  work  in  every  good  work  which  man  performed,  inviting  to, 


206  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Luther  does  not  here  ask  himself  what  else  man  is  to  perform 
in  order  to  possess  the  grace  of  God,  beyond  doing  what  he  can, 
humbling  himself  and  praying  for  grace,  as  all  preceding  ages 
had  taught.  He  is  still  looking  for  an  assurance  of  salvation  by 
some  other  method.  Only  at  a  later  date  does  he  learn,  or  thinks 
he  learns,  how  it  is  to  be  obtained  (by  faith  alone).  Here  he 
merely  says  :  "  It  is  the  greatest  plague  to  speak  of  the  signs  of 
possessing  grace  and  thereby  to  lull  man  into  security."  He 
has  not  yet  found  the  assurance  of  the  "  Gracious  God,"  as  he  is 
to  express  it  later. 

Meanwhile  he  proceeds,  ostensibly  following  St.  Paul,  to 
denounce  the  principle  "  he  who  does  what  he  can,"  etc., 
like  wise  freewill  and  the  possibility  of  fulfilling  the  law. 

Paul  teaches,  for  instance,  in  Romans  viii.  3  f. :  What  the 
Mosaic  law  could  not  do  on  account  of  the  rebellion  of  the  flesh 
in  man,  namely,  conquer  sin,  that  God  did  by  the  incarnation  of 
His  Son,  who  overcame  sin  and  helps  us  to  fulfil  the  law  ;  in 

co-operating  with,  and  furthering  it.  Cp.  Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  577  ff. 
The  mediaeval  theological  work  most  widely  known  in  Luther's  time, 
the  "  Compendium  theologicce  veritatis,"  says  expressly  :  "  Without 
grace  no  one  is  able  to  do  his  part  so  as  to  prepare  himself  for  salva- 
tion "  (1.  5,  c.  11).  We  find  there  no  trace  of  the  Pelagianism  with 
which  Luther  so  bitterly  reproached  the  whole  theology  of  the  Middle 
Ages.  (See  Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  576,  n.  5).  "Is  mere  co-operation 
with  grace  Pelagian  ?  "  Denifle  asks  (p.  577).  And  what  authorised 
Luther  to  say  in  the  Schmalkald  Articles  (Miiller-Kolde,  "  Die  sym- 
bolischen  Biicher  der  evangel,  luther.  Kirche,"  1907,  p.  311)  that 
the  teaching  "  si  facial  homo  quantum  in  se  est,  Deum  largiri  ei  certo 
suam  gratiam,"  was  a  portentum,  a  heathenish  dogma  from  which  it 
followed  that  Christ  had  died  in  vain  ? 

Luther  himself  had  previously,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms 
(Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  262),  written,  that  God  gives  His  grace  without  fail 
to  him  who  does  his  part,  and  yet  he  thereby  assumed,  with  the  whole 
of  theology,  that  grace  and  glory  were  not  on  that  account  merited, 
but  given  us  without  any  desert  on  our  part.  (Denifle-Weiss,  I2, 
p.  441.)  The  passage  reads  :  "  Hinc  recte  doctor  es,  quod  homini  facienti 
quod  est  in  se,  Deus  infallibiliter  dat  gratiam,  et  licet  non  de  condigno 
sese  possit  ad  gratiam  prceparare,  quia  est  incomparabilis,  tamen  bene 
de  congruo,  propter  promissionem  istam  Dei  et  pactum  misericordice." 
Denifle  here  remarks  aptly  :  "  We  must  not  overlook  the  fact,  that 
Luther  here  formulates  the  proposition  '  Facienti,'  etc.,  in  the  nomi- 
nalistic  sense."  What  is  more  important  is  that  Luther,  immediately 
before,  had  rightly  excluded  all  supernatural  merit  from  natural 
action  ("  non  ex  mentis,  sed  ex  mera  promissione  miserentis  Dei  "). 

The  Nominalists  of  Occam's  school  went  much  further  in  allowing 
a  natural  preparation  for  grace  (though  not  a  meriting)  than  the 
recognised  representatives  of  Scholasticism.  Denifle-Weiss,  1 2,  p.  586  : 
"  The  preparation  for  saving  grace  takes  place,  according  to  the 
Occamists,  by  purely  natural  acts  under  the  general  concurrence  of 
God ;  particular  concurrence  is,  according  to  them  and  speaking 
generally,  the  saving  grace  itself,  whereas,  according  to  Scholasticism 
proper,  special  concurrence,  i.e.  actual  grace,  intervenes  between  tho 


FREEDOM  CALLED  INTO  QUESTION    207 

those  who  are  not  born  again,  sin  lives  as  the  "  law  of  sin," 
because  they  are  "  weak "  (rjo-dfrei)  against  the  attacks  of 
concupiscence ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  saving  grace  of  the 
gospel  frees  us  from  the  "  law  of  sin  and  death."  To  the  pro- 
position with  which  Paul  introduces  this  doctrine,  viz.  that  it 
had  not  been  possible  for  the  law  (i.e.  the  Mosaic  Law)  to  conquer 
sin,  Luther  simply  adds  :  "  where  now  is  the  freedom  of  the 
will  ? l  .  .  .  the  holy  Apostle  Paul  says  here  expressly  that  the 
law  was  unable  to  condemn  [overcome]  sin,  or  even  the  weakness 
which  proceeds  from  the  flesh.  This  is  nothing  else  but  the 
doctrine  which  I  have  so  frequently  been  insisting  upon,  that  a 
fulfilling  of  the  law  through  our  own  efforts  is  impossible  ;  it 
cannot  even  be  said  that  we  have  the  power  to  will  and  to  be  able, 
in  such  a  way  as  God  would  have  us,  viz.  by  grace  [thus  it  is 
possible  to  us  to  perform  what  is  naturally  good]  ;  for  otherwise 
grace  would  not  be  necessary,  but  only  useful,  and  otherwise  the 
sin  of  Adam  would  not  have  corrupted  our  nature,  but  have  left 
it  unimpaired.  ...  It  is  true  that  the  law  of  nature  is  written 
in  the  hearts  of  all ;  reason  also  has  a  natural  desire  for  what  is 
good,  but  this  is  selfish,  being  directed  to  our  own  good,  not  to 
that  which  pleases  God  ;  only  faith  working  by  love  is  directed 
towards  God.  All  that  nature  desires  and  acquires,  goodness, 
wisdom,  virtue  and  whatever  else  there  is,  are  evil  goods  ('  male 
bona  sunt '),  because  nature,  by  original  sin,  is  blinded  in  its 
knowledge  and  chained  in  its  affections,  and  therefore  cannot 
know  God,  nor  love  Him  above  ah1  things  nor  yet  refer  all  to  Him. 

natural  and  the  supernatural,  i.e.  saving  grace,  and  is  necessary  for 
man's  preparation  for  the  reception  of  the  latter  ;  the  general  con- 
currence on  the  other  hand  is  represented  as  insufficient  because  it 
belongs  to  the  natural  order.  (See  above,  pp.  141  ff.)  Never- 
theless, the  Nominalists,  as  A.  Weiss  points  out  (Denifle,  I2,  p.  578, 
n.  2),  came  to  expound  their  theory  quite  satisfactorily.  See  Alten- 
staig,  "  Lexicon  theolog.,"  Venet.,  1583,  fol.  163,  s.v.  Facere  quod  in 
se  est.  Still,  Denifle  is  right  when  he  says  (p.  441)  that  the  reproach 
of  Pelagianism  later  on  urged  against  them  by  Luther  did  to  some 
extent  apply  to  the  Occamists. 

The  deeper  ground,  however,  which  led  Luther  in  the  above  passages 
of  the  Commentary  on  Romans  to  attack  the  "  Facienli,"  etc.,  was 
that,  in  his  antagonism  against  the  good  works  of  the  self-righteous, 
he  had,  with  the  assistance  of  pseudo-mysticism,  reached  a  point  where 
he  denied  that  any  vital  act  on  the  part  of  man  had  any  potency  for 
the  working  out  of  salvation.  In  the  work  of  salvation  he  allows  of  no 
power  of  choice:  "The  fulfilling  of  the  law  by  our  own  efforts  is 
absolutely  impossible  "  ;  "  free  will  is  altogether  in  sin  and  cannot 
choose  what  is  good  in  God's  sight."  See  vol.  ii.,  xiv.  3.  Cp.  W.  Braun, 
"  Die  Bedeutung  der  Concupiscenz  bei  Luther,"  pp.  215,  217,  219,  221. 

Protestant  theologians  could,  moreover,  have  found  the  axiom 
"  Facienti"  etc.,  duly  explained  in  the  Catholic  sense,  with  its  biblical 
and  patristic  supports,  even  in  the  ordinary  Catholic  handbooks  of 
theology,  which  would  have  obviated  much  misapprehension  ;  cp., 
for  instance,  H.  Hurter,  "  Theologice  specialis  para  oltera"11  Inns- 
bruck, 1903  (Compendium  3),  p.  G5  seq.,  72  seq. 
1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  183. 


208  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Therefore  it  follows  that,  without  faith  and  love,  man  is  unable 
to  desire,  have,  or  do  anything  that  is  good,  but  only  evil,  even 
when  he  does  what  is  good."  "  Without  love,  i.e.  without  the 
assistance  of  an  external  and  higher  power,  he  sins  continually 
against  the  law  '  Thou  shalt  not  covet,'  for  this  commandment 
requires  that  we  should  not  appropriate  or  seek  anything  for 
ourselves,  but  live,  act  and  think  for  God  in  all  things.  This 
commandment  is  simply  beyond  us."1 

His  object  in  thus  disparaging  liberty  is  not  for  the  present 
grounded  on  the  Almighty  Power  of  God,  as  though  this 
stood  in  its  way,  or,  as  was  the  case  later,  on  predestination, 
as  though  its  irrefutable  decree  were  incompatible  with 
liberty,  but  merely  on  his  exaggeration  of  the  results  of 
original  sin  with  regard  to  doing  what  is  good  (i.e.  on 
concupiscence) ;  he  simply  moves  along  the  old  lines  of  his 
distaste  for  good  works  and  for  so-called  self -righteousness.2 

His  misinterpretation  of  the  Scholastics,  due  partly  to 
ignorance,  partly  to  the  strength  of  his  prejudice  against 
them,  here  did  him  very  notable  service.  He  says  on  one 
occasion :  "In  their  arbitrary  fashion  they  make  out  that, 
on  the  infusion  of  grace,  the  whole  of  original  sin  is  remitted 
in  everyone  just  like  all  actual  sin,  as  though  sin  could  thus 
be  removed  at  once,  in  the  same  way  as  darkness  is  dis- 
pelled by  light.  ...  It  is  true  their  Aristotle  made  sin 
and  righteousness  to  consist  in  works.  Either  I  never 
understood  them,  or  they  did  not  express  themselves  well."3 
Here  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  former  hypothesis  is 
the  correct  one.  That  he  did  not  understand  his  teachers 
and  the  school  books  is  apparent  from  the  following  re- 
mark :  If  sin  were  completely  removed  in  confession 
("  omnia  ablata  et  evacuata"),  then  he  who  comes  from 
confession  ought  to  prefer  himself  to  all  others,  and  not 
look  upon  himself  as  a  sinner  like  the  rest.  Even  the 
Occamists  never  provided  the  slightest  ground  for  such  an 
inference,  though  they  admitted  in  the  justified  the  entire 
remission  of  all  sin,  original  as  well  as  actual.  Luther  had 
said  in  the  very  passage  of  the  Commentary  on  Romans 
just  quoted  :  "  the  remission  of  sin  is,  it  is  true,  a  real 
remission,  yet  not  a  removal  of  sin  ;  the  removal  is  only 
to  be  hoped  for  ("  quod  non  sit  ablatio  peccati,  nisi  in  spe  ") 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  183  f. 

2  Cp.  ibid.,  pp.  114,  185,  187,  244. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  108. 


MALEDICTIONS  209 

from  the  giving  of  grace  ;  grace  commences  the  process  of 
the  removal  in  this  way,  that  the  sin  is  no  longer  imputed 
as  sin."1  But,  without  recalling  his  own  admission  that  he 
may  possibly  have  misunderstood  the  Scholastics,  he  goes 
on  to  speak  of  the  "  deliria  "  of  such  Doctors. 

5.  Luther  rudely  sets  aside  the  older  doctrine  of  Virtue 
and  Sin 

In  his  Commentary  on  Romans  Luther  enters  upon  the 
domain  of  theological  and  philosophical  discussion  regarding 
the  questions  of  natural  and  supernatural  morality,  the 
state  of  grace  and  the  infused  habit,  sometimes  with  subtilty, 
sometimes  with  coarse  invective,  but  owing  to  the  limits 
of  the  present  work  we  are  unable  to  follow  him  except 
quite  cursorily. 

The  manner  in  which  he  flings  his  "  curses  "  at  the  doc- 
trines of  Scholasticism  is  distinctive  of  him  ;  he  says  they 
are  entirely  compounded  of  pride  and  ignorance  with  regard 
to  sin,  to  God  and  the  law  ;2  "  cursed  be  the  word  '  formatum 
charitate,'  and  also  the  distinction  between  works  according 
to  the  substance  of  the  deed  and  the  intention  of  the  Law- 
giver."3 There  is  perhaps  no  previous  instance  of  a  learned, 
exegetical  treatise  intended  for  academic  consumption 
being  thus  spiced  with  curses. 

Certain  of  Luther's  remarks  on  his  practical  experience  call  for 
consideration.  Such  is  the  following  :  "  Everywhere  in  the 
Church  great  relapses  after  confession  are  now  noticeable. 
People  are  confident  that  they  are  justified  instead  of  first 
awaiting  justification,  and  therefore  the  devil  has  an  easy  task 
with  such  false  assurance  of  safety,  and  overthrows  men.  All 
this  is  due  to  making  righteousness  consist  in  works.  But  who- 
ever thinks  like  a  Christian  can  find  this  out  for  himself.4 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  108  f.     Cp.  p.  178,  where  he  complains  that  they 
had  reached  the  "  nocentissima  fraus,  ut  baptizati  vel  absoluti,  statim  se 
sine  omni  peccato  arbitrantes,  securi  fierent  de  adepta  iustitia  et  manibus 
remissis  quieti,  nullius  sc.  conscii  peccati,  quod  gemitu  et  lachrymis  lugendo 
et  laborando  expugnarent  atque  expurgarent.      Igitur    peccatum   est   in 
spirituals  homine  relictum,"  etc.     It  is  clear  that  the  continuance  cf 
the  "fames  peccati  "  is  confused  with  the  continuance  of  sin  and  the 
languor  which  is  frequently  due  to  weakness  after  the  extirpation  of 
sin,  with  a  languor  which  must  necessarily  set  in.     The  "  grace  which 
is  given  "  he  sometimes  looks  upon  as  actual,  sometimes  as  saving 
grace.     To  follow  him  through  all  his  erroneous  notions  would  be  end« 
less. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  114. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  167.  «  Ibid.,  p.  111. 

I.— P 


210  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

He  gives  the  following  exhortation  with  great  emphasis  and 
almost  as  though  he  had  made  an  astounding  discovery  :  "  Who- 
ever goes  to  confession,  let  him  not  believe  that  he  gets  rid  of  his 
burden  and  can  then  live  in  peace."1  His  new  doctrine  of  sin, 
which  he  discloses  in  the  same  passage,  lies  at  the  bottom  of  this  ; 
the  baptised  and  the  absolved  must  on  no  account  forthwith 
consider  themselves  free  from  sin,  on  the  contrary  "  they  must 
not  fancy  themselves  sure  of  the  righteousness  they  have  obtained 
and  allow  their  hands  to  drop  listlessly  as  though  they  were 
not  conscious  of  any  sin,  for  they  have  yet  to  fight  against  it  and 
exterminate  it  with  sighs  and  tears,  with  sadness  and  effort."2 

"  Sin,  therefore,  still  remains  in  the  spiritual  man  for  his 
exercise  in  the  life  of  grace,  for  the  humbling  of  his  pride,  for  the 
driving  back  of  his  presumption  ;  whoever  does  not  exert 
himself  zealously  in  the  struggle  against  it,  is  in  danger  of  being 
condemned  even  though  he  cease  to  sin  any  more  ('  sine  dubio 
Jiabet,  unde  damnetur  ').  We  must  carry  on  a  war  with  our 
desires,  for  they  are  culpable  ('  culpa  '),  they  are  really  sins  and 
render  us  worthy  of  damnation  ;  only  the  mercy  of  God  does  not 
impute  them  to  us  ('  imputare  ')  when  we  fight  manfully  against 
them,  calling  upon  God's  grace."3 

There  are  few  passages  in  the  Commentary  where  his  false 
conception  of  the  entire  corruption  of  human  nature  by 
original  sin  and  concupiscence  comes  out  so  plainly  as  in  the 
words  just  quoted.  We  see  here  too  how  this  conception 
leads  him  to  the  denial  of  all  liberty  for  doing  what  is  good, 
and  to  the  idea  of  imputation. 

We  can  well  understand  that  he  needed  St.  Augustine  to 
assist  him  to  cover  all  this.  And  yet,  as  though  to  em- 
phasise his  own  devious  course,  he  quotes,  among  other 
passages,  one  in  which  Augustine  confutes  the  view  of 
any  sin  being  present  in  man  simply  by  reason  of  con- 
cupiscence. 

•"  If  we  do  not  consent  to  concupiscence,"  Augustine  says,  "  it 
is  no  sin  in  those  who  are  regenerate,  so  that,  even  if  the  '  Non 
concupisces '  is  infringed,  yet  the  injunction  of  Jesus  Sirach 
(xviii.  30)  '  Go  not  after  thy  lusts  '  is  observed.  It  is  merely 
a  manner  of  speaking  to  call  concupiscence  sin  ("  modo  quodam 
loquendi  "),  because  it  sprang  from  sin,  and,  when  it  is  victorious, 
causes  sin."*  To  this  statement  of  the  Father  of  the  Church, 
which  is  so  antagonistic  to  his  own  ideas,  Luther  can  only  add  : 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  179. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  178.    See  above,  p.  209,  n.  1. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  178. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  181.  The  passage  quoted  from  Augustine  is  in  "  De 
nuptiis  et  concupiscentia  ad  Valerium,"  1.  I,  c.  23  ;  Migne,  P.  L.,  xliv., 
col.  428. 


AUGUSTINE   ON   CONCUPISCENCE    211 

that,  certainly,  concupiscence  is  in  this  way  merely  the  cause  and 
effect  of  sin,  but  not  formally  sinful  ("  causaliter  et  effectualiter, 
non  formaliter  ")  ;  Augustine  himself  had  taught  in  another 
passage,1  that  owing  to  the  mere  existence  of  concupiscence,  we 
are  able  to  do  what  is  good  only  in  an  imperfect  way,  not  well 
and  perfectly  ("  facere,  non  perficere"  ;  cp.  Rom  vii..  18) ;  that  we 
ought,  however,  to  strive  to  act  well  and  perfectly  "  if  we  wish  to 
attain  to  the  perfection  of  righteousness  "  ("  perficere  bonum,  est 
non  concupiscere  ").* 

St.  Augustine's  words,  which  are  much  to  the  point  if  taken  in 
the  right  sense,  only  encouraged  Luther  in  his  opposition  to  the 
Scholastics  ;  he  points  out  to  them  that  Augustine's  manner  is 
not  theirs,  and  that  at  least  he  supports  his  statements  by  Holy 
Scripture  when  speaking  of  the  desires  which  persist  without  the 
consent  of  the  will ;  they  on  the  other  hand  come  along  without 
Bible  proofs  and  thus  with  less  authority  ;  those  old  Doctors 
quieted  consciences  with  the  voice  of  the  Apostle,  but  these  new 
ones  do  not  do  so  at  all,  rather  they  force  the  Divine  teaching 
into  the  bed  of  their  own  abstractions  ;  for  instance,  they  derive 
from  Aristotle  their  theory  as  to  how  virtues  and  vices  dwell  in 
the  soul,  viz.  as  the  form  exists  in  the  subject  ;  all  comprehension 
of  the  difference  between  flesh  and  spirit  is  thus  made  impossible. 

The  question  which  here  forces  itself  upon  Luther,  viz. 
how  virtue  and  vice  exist  in  the  soul,  is  of  fundamental 
importance  for  his  view  of  ethics,  and,  as  it  frequently 
occurs  in  the  Commentary,  it  must  not  be  passed  over. 

When  he  says  that  virtues  and  vices  do  not  adhere  to  the 
soul,  he  means  the  same  as  what  he  elsewhere  expresses 
more  clearly,  viz.  that  "  it  depends  merely  on  the  gracious 
will  of  God  whether  a  thing  is  good  or  bad."3 

"  Nothing  is  good  of  its  own  nature,  nothing  is  bad  of  its  own 
nature  ;  the  will  of  God  makes  it  good  or  bad."* 

1  "  Contra  Julianum,"  1.  3,  c.  26  ;  Migne,  P.  L.,  xliv.,  col.  733  sq. 

2  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  182. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  221. 

4  Ibid.     "  Bonitas    Dei   facit    nos    bonos    et    opera    nostra   bona ; 
quia  non  essent  in  se  bona,  nisi  quia  Deus  reputat  ea  bona.    Et  tantum 
aunt  vel  non  sunt,  quantum  ille  reputat  vel  non  reputat.    Idcirco  nostrum 
reputare  vel  non  reputare  nihil  est.     Qui  sic  sapit,  semper  pavidus  est, 
semper  Dei  reputationem  timet  et  expectat.     Idcirco  nescit  superbire  et 
contendere,  sicutfaciunt  superbi  iustitiarii.  qui  certi  sunt  de  bonis  operibus 
suis.     Perversa  itaque  esl  definitio  virtutis  apud  Aristotelem,  quod  ipsa 
nos  perficit  et  opus  eius  laudabile  reddit."     The  nominalistic  doctrine 
of  acceptation  also   conies  out  in  Luther's  Heidelberg  Disputation 
("  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  pp.  352,  356),  though  he  explains  it  in  such 
a  fashion  that  it  is  clear  he  does  not  wish  to  go  as  far  as  Occam's 
paradox  to  be  mentioned  immediately.     He  answers  the  objection 
that  the  same  act  cannot  be  pleasing  and  displeasing  to  God  at  the 
same   time,   thus  :     "  The   Scholastics  are  acquainted  only  with  an 


212  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

This  is  the  merest  Nominalism,  akin  to  Occam's  paradox  that 
"  hatred  of  God,  theft  and  adultery  might  be  not  merely  not 
wicked,  but  even  meritorious  were  the  will  of  God  to  command 
them." 

From  such  ideas  of  Occam  Luther  advanced  to  the  following  : 
"  The  will  of  God  decides  whether  I  am  pleasing  to  Him  or  not."1 

This  explains  the  proposition  which  frequently  appears,  in  the 
Commentary  on  Romans  and  elsewhere,  that  man  is  at  the  same 
time  righteous  and  a  sinner,  that  the  righteous  man  has  the  left 
foot  still  in  sin  and  the  right  in  grace. 2 

In  the  Commentary  he  attacks  self-complacency  in  the  perform- 
ance of  good  works  with  the  cry  :  "  Good  works  are  not  some- 
thing that  can  please  because  they  are  good  or  meritorious,  but 
because  they  have  been  chosen  by  God  from  eternity  as  pleasing 
to  Himself,"  words  which  presuppose  that  only  the  imputation 
matters.  "  Therefore,"  he  continues,  "  works  do  not  render  us 
good,  but  our  goodness,  or  rather  the  goodness  of  God,  makes  us 
good  and  our  works  good  ;  for  in  themselves  they  would  not  be 
good,  and  they  are  or  are  not  good  in  so  far  as  God  accounts  them, 
or  does  not  account  them  good  ('  quantum  ille  reputat  vel  non 
reputat ').  Our  own  accounting  or  not  accounting  does  not 
matter  in  the  least.  Whoever  keeps  this  before  him  is  always 
filled  with  fear,  and  waits  with  apprehension  to  see  how  God's 
sentence  will  fall  out.  This  puts  an  end  to  all  that  puffing  up  of 
self  and  quarrelling,  so  beloved  of  the  proud  '  iustitiarii,'  who  are 
so  sure  of  their  good  works." 

"  Even  the  very  definition  of  virtue  which  Aristotle  gives,"  he 
concludes,  "  is  all  wrong,  as  though,  forsooth,  virtue  made  us 
perfect  and  its  work  rendered  us  worthy  of  praise.  The  truth  is 
simply  that  it  makes  us  praiseworthy  in  our  own  eyes  and 
commends  our  works  to  us  ;  but  this  is  abominable  in  God's 
sight,  while  the  contrary  is  pleasing  to  Him."3 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Scholasticism,  basing  its  teaching  on 
Aristotle,  considered  virtue  and  vice  as  something  real  and 
objective,  as  qualities  of  the  soul  which  adhere  to  it  inwardly 
and  "  inform  "  it,  i.e.  impart  to  it  a  spiritual  form  and  become 
part  of  it  in  the  same  way  as  material  things  have  their  special 

acceptation  by  God  without  forgiveness  ;  we,  on  the  contrary,  know 
that  the  evil  in  all  works  is  forgiven  through  Christ,  our  righteousness, 
Who  makes  good  all  our  defects  ;  just  as  the  saints  have  so-called 
merits  only  in  Christ,  for  Whose  sake  God  accepts  graciously  their 
works  which  He  would  not  otherwise  accept."  "  Werke,"  Wreim.  ed., 
1,  p.  370.  Cp.  W.  Braun,  "  Die  Concupiscenz,"  etc.,  p.  213,  where  he 
rightly  draws  attention  to  the  fact  that  A.  Jundt,  "  Le  developpement 
de  la  pens6e  religieuse  de  Luther  jusqu'en  1517,"  Paris,  1906,  has 
not  drawn  his  "  information  regarding  Scholasticism  from  the  right 
source,  but  from  Harnack's  and  Seeberg's  works,  and  even  from 
Denifle's  quotations."  Cp.  "  Hist.  Jahrbuch,"  27,  1906,  p.  884  : 
"  Jundt  knows  nothing  of  the  Catholic  literature  on  the  matter,"  etc. 

1  Braun,  pp.  191,  211 ;  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  42  ;    2,  p.  536. 

2  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  221. 
Ibid. 


PREPARING  FOR  JUSTIFICATION     213 

qualities,  for  instance,  their  natural  colour  without  which  they 
do  not  exist.  These,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  were  merely  learned 
ways  of  expressing  the  fundamental  truth  naturally  perceived 
by  all,  viz.  that  evil  deeds  and  vices  render  a  man  evil,  and  good 
deeds  and  virtues  render  him  good  ;  no  sane  mind  could  conceive 
of  a  theory  of  imputation  by  which  good  is  made  evil  or  evil 
good. 

Luther  was  naturally  obliged  by  his  new  theology  of 
imputation  to  declare  war  on  the  older  theological  view  of 
the  existence  of  virtue  and  vice  in  the  soul.1  It  was  in  so 
doing  that,  in  his  excitement,  he  uttered  the  curses  above 
referred  to  (p.  209).  It  was  no  mere  question  of  words, 
but  of  the  very  foundation  of  his  new  theology,  a  fact 
which  makes  his  excitement  comprehensible. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  by  his  application  of  the  theory  of 
imputation  he  was  heading  for  a  "  transformation  of  all 
values  "  and  drifting  towards  the  admission  of  a  "  future 
life  of  good  and  evil  "  long  before  modern  philosophy  had 
confidently  opened  up  a  similar  perspective. 


6.  Preparation  for  Justification 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that,  according  to  the  above 
exposition  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans,  man  has  ab- 
solutely no  freedom  of  choice  for  doing  what  is  good  and 
that  we  cannot  know  with  regard  to  our  works  how  God 
will  account  them,  Luther  frequently  speaks  in  the  same 
book  of  the  preparation  necessary  for  obtaining  justification, 
namely,  by  works.  Here  his  feeling  and  his  eloquence 
come  into  full  play  at  the  expense  of  clear  theology.  He 
does  not  even  take  into  account  the  irresistibility  of  grace, 
which  is  the  point  he  is  bound  to  arrive  at  finally.  Christ 
alone  does  the  work,  he  says  ("  soli  Christo  iustitia  relin- 
quitur,  soli  ipsi  opera  gratia?  et  spfritus").2  On  the  other 
hand,  the  bringing  about  of  justification,  at  least  so  far  as 
preparation  goes,  is  imposed  upon  man.  There  are  "  works 
which  predispose  to  justification,"  he  teaches  ("  opera  quce 
fiunt  prceparatorie  ad  iustificationem  acquirendam  ").  "  Who- 
ever by  his  works  disposes  himself  for  the  grace  of  justification 
is  already,  to  a  certain  extent,  righteous  ;  for  righteousness 
largely  consists  in  the  will  to  be  righteous."3 

1  Cp.  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  183.        2  Ibid.,  p.  89.         3  Ibid.,  p.  90  f. 


214  LUTHER    THE   MONK 

"  Such  works,"  he  continues,  "  are  good,  because  we  do  not 
trust  in  them,  but  by  them  prepare  ourselves  for  justification 
by  which  alone  we  may  hope  for  righteousness." l  "  Therefore  we 
must  pray  earnestly,  be  zealous  in  good  works  and  mortify  our- 
selves ('  castigandum  ')  until  readiness  and  joyousness  develop  in 
the  will  and  its  old  inclination  to  sin  is  overcome  by  grace." 

"  For  the  grace  [of  justification]  will  not  be  given  to  man 
without  this  personal  agriculture  of  himself "  ("  non  dabitur 
gratia  sine  ista  agricultura  sui  ipsius  ").2 

We  must  continue  to  "  look  upon  such  works  as  merely  pre- 
paratory, just  as  all  works  of  righteousness  performed  in  grace, 
prepare  in  their  turn  for  an  increase  of  justification,  according 
to  Apoc.  xxii.  II."3  "Only  so  can  we  be  saved,  namely,  by 
repenting  that  we  are  laden  with  sin  and  are  living  in  sin, 
and  by  imploring  of  God  our  deliverance.4  He  also,  in  other 
passages,  emphasises  the  fact  that  works  are  necessary  for 
justification  as  its  preparation  :  "  We  must  do  works  in  order  to 
obtain  justification  ('opera  pro  iustificatione  qucerenda'),  works 
of  grace  and  faith  ;  they  confirm  the  desire  for  justification  and 
the  fulfilment  of  the  law,  but  we  may  not  think  that  we  are 
justified  by  them."  "  Rather,  true  believers  spend  their  whole 
life  in  seeking  justification  .  .  .  whoever  seeks  it  with  the  heart 
and  by  works,  is  without  doubt  already  justified  in  God's  sight."5 
Towards  the  end  of  the  Commentary  he  describes  in  emphatic 
words,  which  will  be  quoted  below,  the  humility  and  sighing 
which  should  bring  about  justification. 

We  need  not  here  specify  how  far  the  demand  for  individual 
effort  is  here  a  reminiscence  of  his  Catholic  training,  or  more 
particularly  due  to  the  school  of  Occam.  It  is  an  undoubted 
fact  that  Occamism  and  pseudo -mysticism  are  here  rubbing 
shoulders,  and  that  Luther  himself  is  aware  of  the  incongruity.6 

7.  Appropriation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  by  humility — 
Neither  "  Faith  only  "  nor  assurance  of  Salvation 

Luther's  words,  quoted  above,  where  he  says  that  Christ 
fulfilled  the  law  for  us,  He  made  His  righteousness  ours  and 
our  sins  His  (see  above,  p.  95  f.),  show  that  he  applied  in  the 
fullest  manner  the  theory  of  imputation  to  justification. 
Man  remains  a  sinner,  but  the  sin  is  not  imputed  to  him, 
he  is  accounted  righteous  by  the  imputing  to  him  of  what 
is  quite  alien  to  him,  viz.  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  Thus 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  91.         2  Ibid.,  p.  93.         3  Ibid.,  p.  95. 

«  Ibid.,  p.  96.  6  Ibid.,  p.  100  f. 

6  Cp.  what  he  says  in  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  85,  about  the  "  opera  iusta, 
bona,  sancta  extra  vel  ante  iustificationem."  On  p.  84  he  says,  our  good 
deeds  should  be  directed  towards  the  end  "  ut  mereamur  iustificari  ex 
ipso  (Deo)."  In  the  interpretation  of  chapter  ii.  he  explains  verse  14  : 
"  Quicumque  legem  implet  est  in  Christo  et  datur  ei  gratia  per  sui 
prceparationem  ad  eandem,  quantum  in  se  est"  p.  38. 


CHRIST  OUR  RIGHTEOUSNESS    215 

he  is  at  one  and  the  same  time  the  friend  and  the  enemy  of 
God.1 

The  verb  "  to  justify  "  as  used  in  Holy  Scripture  the  author  of 
the  Commentary  on  Romans  simply  takes  to  mean  "  to  account 
as  righteous,"  or  "to  declare  righteous."  Thus  he  says  :  "  The 
doers  of  the  law  (according  to  Rom.  ii.  13)  are  justified,  i.e.  they 
are  accounted  righteous.  In  Psalm  cxlii.  we  read  :  '  In  Thy 
sight  no  man  living  shall  be  justified,'  i.e.  be  accounted  righteous. 
.  .  .  The  Pharisee  in  the  Temple  wished  to  '  justify  himself  ' 
(Luke  x.  29),  i.e.  to  declare  his  justification."2 

"  Whoever  seeks  peace  in  his  righteousness,  seeks  it  in  the 
flesh."  "  Christ  only  is  righteousness  and  truth,  and  in  Him  all 
is  given  us  in  order  that  by  Him  we  may  be  righteous  and  true 
and  escape  eternal  damnation."3  "  This  justification  takes  place 
(according  to  Paul)  outside  of  works  of  the  law,  i.e.  without  works 
which  are  outside  of  faith  and  grace,  that  is,  which  come  from 
the  law,  which  forces  by  fear  and  attracts  by  temporal  promises. 
The  Apostle  calls  those  only  works  of  faith  which  proceed  from 
the  spirit  of  freedom  through  the  love  of  God,  and  these  can  only 
be  done  by  the  man  who  is  justified  by  faith.  The  works  of  the 
law  however  do  not  help  towards  justification,  but  are  rather  a 
hindrance  because  they  prevent  a  man  from  looking  upon  him- 
self as  unrighteous  and  in  need  of  justification."4 

"  Christ,  according  to  the  Apostle,  has  become  our  righteous- 
ness (1  Cor.  i.  30),  i.e.  all  the  good  that  we  possess  is  exterior, 
it  is  Christ's.  It  is  only  in  us  by  faith  and  hope  in  Him."  "  Our 
fulness  and  our  righteousness  is  outside  of  us,  within  we  are  empty 
and  poor.  .  .  .  The  pious  know  that  sin  alone  dwells  in  them, 
but  that  this  is  covered  over  and  not  imputed  on  account  of 
Christ.  .  .  .  The  beauty  of  Christ  conceals  our  hideousness."5 

"  There  is  in  this  system,"  says  Denifle,  in  his  description  of  it, 
"  no  question  of  the  expulsion  of  sin.  The  sinner  .  .  .  casts  him- 
self in  his  sinful  condition  on  Christ  without  any  means  of  his 
own,  he  hides  himself  under  the  wings  of  the  hen  and  comforts 
himself  with  the  idea  :  Christ  has  done  everything  in  place  of  me, 
all  my  works  would  be  merely  sin  .  .  .  Luther  did  not  perceive 
what  a  grievous  wrong  he  was  doing  to  God  by  this  theory.  It 
entirely  suppressas  the  inward  grace  of  God  which  raises  a  man 
up  again,  penetrates  to  the  depths  of  his  soul  and  purifies  and 
fills  it  with  supernatural  strength.  The  organic  process  of 
justification  thus  shrinks  into  a  purely  mechanical  shifting  of  the 
scenery."  To  this  Denifle  opposes  the  statement  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture :  "  That  man  by  a  living  faith  is  implanted  in  Christ  as  the 
sapling  is  grafted  on  to  the  olive  tree,  or  the  branch  on  the  vine, 
so  that  there  must  be  an  interior  change,  an  ennobling,  and  thus 
a  new  life."6 

Luther  says,   "  we  are  outwardly  righteous  because  we  are 

1  Cp.  Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  608.  2  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  41. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  83  f.         *  Ibid.,  p.  84.         5  Ibid.,  p.  114  f. 
6  Denifle-Weiss,  I2,  p.  465. 


216  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

justified,  not  by  our  works,  but  only  by  the  reputation  of  God  ; 
but  His  reputation  is  not  inwardly  within  us,  and  is  not  within 
our  power."  "  Solum  Deo  reputante  sumtts  iusti,  ergo  non  nobis 
viventibus  vel  operantibus  ;  quare  intrinsece  et  ex  nobis  impii 
semper."1 

The  connection  between  "  reputation "  as  above  and 
Occam's  theory  of  acceptation  is  unmistakable. 

The  nominalistic  views  of  God  and  of  His  arbitrary 
acceptation  were  the  form  in  which  Luther's  ideas  were 
moulded.  The  general  structure  of  his  thoughts  was  de- 
rived from  what  he  had  retained  of  the  Nominalism  of 
Occam.2  On  the  principal  point,  however,  Luther  diverges 
from  the  theology  of  the  school  of  Occam  by  not  admitting 
in  any  way  the  saving  grace  which  the  latter  teaches. 
There  is  with  him  no  such  thing  as  an  infused  virtue  of 
righteousness.3  Luther  in  his  doctrine  on  virtue  and  vice 
had  already  suppressed  them  as  "  qualities,"  i.e.  as  objective 
realities  ;  still  more  so  does  he  deny  that  the  grace  which 
makes  us  righteous  is  in  any  sense  a  real  "  qualitas,"  or 
"  habitus  "  ;  in  fact,  he  leaves  no  actual  justifying  grace 
whatever  actually  inherent  in  man,  but  merely  sees  in  God 
a  gracious  willingness  not  to  regard  us  as  sinners,  and  to 
lend  us  His  all-powerful  assistance  for  the  struggle  against 
sin  (concupiscence  and  actual  sin). 

Thus  the  outlines  of  the  strongest  assertions  which  he 
makes  later  as  to  the  imputing  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  are  already  apparent  in  his  interpretation  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Christ  alone  has  assumed  the  place 
of  what  the  Catholic  calls  saving  grace.  He  already  teaches 
what  he  was  to  sum  up  later  in  the  short  formula  :  "  Christ 
Himself  is  my  quality  and  my  formal  righteousness,"  or, 
again,  what  he  was  to  say  to  Melanchthon  in  1536  :  "  Born 
of  God  and  at  the  same  time  a  sinner  ;  this  is  a  contra- 
diction ;  but  in  the  things  of  God  we  must  not  hearken  to 
reason."4  His  Commentary  on  Romans  prepares  us  for 
his  later  assertions :  "  The  gospel  is  a  teaching  having  no 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  104  f. 

2  J.  Picker  in  the  preface  to  Luther's  Commentary  on  Romans, 
p.  1  \  \  i. 

3  For  the  explanation  of  certain  expressions  of  Luther's  in  this  Com- 
mentary, e.g.  that  "  God  infuses  grace,"  and  that  faith  without  works 
does  not  justify,  see  Denifle- Weiss,  I2,  p.  466. 

4  "  Tischreden,"  ed.  Forstemann,  2,  p.  148  :    "  Purjnat  esse  ex  Deo 
naium  et  simul  esse  pcccatorem.'"    Cp.  Weim.  ed.  2,  p.  420. 


HUMBLE  TRUST  217 

connection  whatever  with  reason,  whereas  the  teaching  of 
the  law  can  be  understood  by  reason  .  .  .  reason  cannot 
grasp  an  extraneous  righteousness  and,  even  in  the  saints, 
this  belief  is  not  sufficiently  strong."1  "  The  enduring  sin 
is  admitted  by  God  as  non-existent ;  one  and  the  same  act 
may  be  accepted  before  God  and  not  accepted,  be  good 
and  not  good."  "  Whoever  terms  this  mere  cavilling  ('  cavil- 
latio  ")  is  desirous  of  measuring  the  Divine  by  purblind 
human  reason  and  understands  nothing  of  Holy  Scripture."2 

How  then  are  we  to  obtain  from  God  the  imputation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  ?  There  is  surely  some  condi- 
tion to  be  supplied  by  man  which  may  allow  it  to  be  conferred, 
for  it  cannot  rule  blindly  and  unconsciously.  Or  are  we 
never  certain  of  this  imputation  ?  Luther's  answer  is  very 
pessimistic  :  Man  never  knows  that  it  has  been  bestowed 
upon  him.  He  can  only  hope,  by  sinking  himself  in  his 
own  nothingness  ("  humilitas  "),  to  placate  God  and  obtain 
this  imputation. 

Thus  the  author  of  the  Commentary  on  Romans  is  still 
very  far  from  that  absolute  assurance  of  salvation  by  faith 
which  he  was  subsequently  to  advocate.3 

He  insists  so  much  on  the  uncertainty  of  salvation  that  he 
blames  Catholic  theologians  severely  for  the  assurance  and 

1  "  Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  23,  p.  160.  By  "saints,"  Luther  means  the 
pious  folk  who  follow  his  teaching. 

"  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  420  (in  the  year  1519). 

3  Cp.,  for  the  absence  of  assurance  of  salvation,  "  Schol.  Rom.," 
p.  104  :  "  Ex  sola  Dei  reputatione  iusti  sumus  ;  reputatio  enim  eius  non 
in  nobis  nee  in  potestate  nostra  est.  Ergo  nee  iustitia  nostra  in  nobis  est 
nee  in  potestate  nostra,"  and,  p.  105  :  "  Peccatores  (sumus)  in  re,  iusti 
autem  in  ape  "  ;  p.  108  :  "  Sonus  perfecte  est  in  spe,  in  re  autem  pec- 
cator  "  ;  p.  89  :  "  Nunquam  scire  possumus,  an  iustificati  simus,  an, 
credamus  ;  idcirco  tanquam  opera  nostra  sint  opera  legis  estimemus  et 
humiliter  peccatores  simus  in  sola  misericordia  eius  iustificari  cupientes. 
.  .  .  In  ipsum  (Christum)  credere  incertum  est"  ;  only  by  this  road  of 
the  sense  of  sin  is  it  possible  to  attain  to  the  "  grace  of  justification  and 
pardon  for  a  possible  secret  and  unconscious  unbelief  "  ;  he  "  qui  se 
credere  putat  et  omnem  fidem  possidere  perfecte "  has  no  part  in  this. 
The  pious  always  think  with  regard  to  their  good  works  :  "  Quis  scit,  si 
gratia  Dei  hccc  mecum  facial  ?  Quis  del  mihi  scire,  quod  bona  intentio 
mea  ex  Deo  sit  ?  Quomodo  scio,  quod  id  quod  fed,  meum,  seu  quod  in  me 
est,  Deo  placeat  ?  "  (p.  323).  (Cp.  the  celebrated  question  :  How  can  I 
find  a  gracious  God  ?  )  "  Away  therefore,"  he  says,  "  with  the  proud 
self-righteous  who  think  themselves  sure  of  their  works  !  "  (p.  221). 
Fear,  humility,  despair  is  according  to  him  the  only  fitting  state  in 
which  to  appear  before  God  :  "  Him  who  despairs  of  himself,  the  Lord 
accepts  "  (p.  223) — that  is  to  say,  if  He  has  not  destined  him  for  hell ! 


218  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

confidence  which  their  teaching  induces  in  man,  and  refuses  to 
admit  any  of  the  customary  signs  which  moralists  and  ascetics 
look  upon  as  conclusive  testimony  of  a  soul  being  in  a  state  of 
grace. 

The  advantage  he  perceives  in  his  new  ideas  is  precisely  that 
they  keep  man  ever  in  a  state  of  fear  ("  semper  pavidus  ").1  That, 
as  Luther  expressly  says,  "  we  can  never  know  whether  we  are 
justified  and  whether  we  believe,  is  owing  to  the  fact  that  it  is 
hidden  from  us  whether  we  live  in  every  word  of  God."2  When 
dealing  with  a  passage,  which  he  makes  use  of  later  in  quite  a 
different  sense  (Rom.  iii.  22,  "  the  justice  of  God  by  faith  of  Jesus 
Christ  unto  all  and  upon  all"),  he  says  :  "We  must  fear  and 
tremble  ('  timent  et  pavent ')  lest  we  please  not  God  ;  we  must  be 
in  fear  and  despair  ('  pavor  et  desperatio  '),  for  such  is  God's  own 
work  in  us  ;  if  this  fear  does  not  take  the  place  of  the  customary 
signs,  then  there  is  no  hope  possible ;  and,  in  so  far,  fear  alone  is 
a  good  sign."3  "  Our  life  is  in  death  [here  speaks  the  mystic], 
our  salvation  in  destruction,  our  kingdom  in  banishment,  our 
heaven  in  hell."4  "  Away  with  all  trust  in  righteousness."  Arise 
and  "  destroy  all  presumption  in  wholesome  despair." 

On  this  road  of  painful  despair  Luther  fancies  he  discovers 
the  only  really  "  good  sign  "  of  salvation,  so  far  as  any  sign  at  all 
can  be  said  to  exist  :  "  On  account  of  the  confession  of  their  sins 
God  accounts  the  saints  as  righteous."6 

"  Whoever  renounces  everything,  even  himself,  is  ready  to 
become  nothing  (volens  it  in  nihilum),  to  go  to  death  and  to 
damnation,  whoever  voluntarily  confesses  and  is  persuaded  that  he 
deserves  nothing  good,  such  a  one  has  done  enough  in  God's  sight 
and  is  righteous.  We  must,  believing  in  the  word  of  the  cross,  die 
to  ourselves  and  to  everything  ;  then  we  shall  live  for  God  alone." 
"  The  saints  have  their  sins  ever  before  them,  they  beg  for 
righteousness  through  the  mercy  of  God  and,  for  that  very 
reason,  they  are  always  accounted  righteous  by  God  ;  in  truth 
they  are  sinners,  though  righteous  by  imputation  ;  unconsciously 
righteous  and  consciously  unrighteous,  sinners  in  deed  but 
righteous  in  hope."  "  God's  anger  is  great  and  wonderful  ;  He 
accounts  them  at  the  same  time  righteous  and  unrighteous, 
removing  sin  and  not  removing  it."6  Here  he  exclaims  patheti- 
cally :  "  God  is  wonderful  in  His  saints  (Ps.  Ixvii.  36),  who  are 
at  the  same  time  righteous  and  unrighteous."  Of  the  "  self- 
righteous"  he  immediately  adds  ironically:  Wonderful  is  God 
in  the  hypocrites,  "  who  are  at  the  same  time  unrighteous  and 
righteous  !  "  Without  any  suspicion  of  paradox,  he  concludes  : 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  221  ;  seo  above,  p.  211,  note  4. 

2  From  passage  cited  above,  p.  114,  n.  1. 

3  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  214.     Cp.  his  explanation  of  the  4th  HeideJberg 
Thesis,  that  in  a  Christian  "  desperatio  "    ("mortificatio")  and  "vivi- 
ficatio  "  are  united;    also  Theses  18  and  24,  that  "  conteri  lege  "  is  for 
everyone  a  necessity  of  the  spiritual  life.     "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1, 
p.  356  f.,  361,  364. 

*  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  219.  5  Ibid,  p.  230. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  105. 


HUMBLE   TRUST  219 

"  It  is  certain  that  God's  elect  will  be  saved,  but  no  one  is  certain 
that  he  is  chosen." 

Luther  repeatedly  represents  the  feeling  of  despair  (under  the 
name  of  "  humilitas  ")  as  not  merely  a  means  of  recognising  the 
imputation  of  God  and  therewith  one's  salvation,  but  even  as  in 
itself  the  only  means  which  can  lead  to  salvation.  He  praises 
"  humility "  in  mystical  language  as  something  man  must 
struggle  to  attain  and  as  the  ideal  of  the  devout.  It  occupies 
almost  the  same  place  in  his  mind  as  the  "  sola  fides  "  at  a 
later  date. 

That  "  humility  "  is  to  him  the  actual  factor  which  obtains 
the  imputation  of  the  merits  of  Christ  and  thus  makes  the  soul 
righteous  and  wins  for  it  eternal  salvation,  is  apparent  not  only 
from  the  above,  but  also  from  the  following  utterances  :  "  When 
we  are  convinced  that  we  are  unrighteous  and  without  the  fear 
of  God,  when,  thus  humbled,  we  acknowledge  ourselves  to  be 
godless  and  foolish,  then  we  deserve  to  be  justified  by  Him."1 
The  fear  of  God  works  humility,  but  humility  makes  us  fit  for  all 
[salvation]  ;  we  must  merely  resign  ourselves  to  the  admission 
that  "  there  is  nothing  so  righteous  that  it  is  not  unrighteous, 
nothing  so  true  that  it  is  not  a  lie,  nothing  so  pure  that  it  is  not 
filthy  and  profane  before  God."2  "  Let  us  be  sinners  in  humility 
and  only  desire  to  be  justified  by  the  mercy  of  God."  He  alone 
who  acknowledges  his  entire  unrighteousness,  who  fears  and 
beseeches,  he  alone,  "  as  an  abiding  sinner,"  opens  for  himself  the 
door  to  salvation.3 

We  must  believe  everything  that  is  of  Christ,  he  says,  and 
only  he  does  this  who  humbly  bewails  his  own  utter  unrighteous- 
ness.* The  mystic  star  of  "humility"  which  has  arisen  to  him 
he  even  describes  as  the  "  vera  fides,"  and  makes  the  following 
inference  :  "As  this  is  so,  we  must  humble  ourselves  beyond 
bounds."  "  When  we  have  humbled  ourselves  wholly  before 
God,  then  we  have  fulfilled  righteousness,  wholly  and  entirely 
('  totam  per/ectamque  iustitiam  ') ;  for  what  else  does  all  Scripture 
teach  but  humility  ?  "8 

Luther  ascribes  to  "  humility  "  all  that  he  later  ascribes  to 
faith  ;  "all  Scripture,"  which  now  teaches  humility,  will  later 
teach  that  faith  is  the  only  power  which  saves.  In  that  very 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which  at  a  later  date  was  to  be  the 
bulwark  of  his  "  sola  fides,"  he  can  as  yet,  in  1515  and  1516,  find 
only  "  sola  humilitas."  His  frequent  exhortations  to  self- 
annihilation  and  despair  of  one's  own  efforts,  exhortations  taking 
the  form  of  fulsome  praise  of  one  particular  kind  of  humility, 
must  be  traced  back  to  mystical  influence  and  to  his  irritation 
against  the  "  proud  self-righteous." 

It  is  true  that  Luther  had,  from  the  very  beginning  of 
his  exposition,  as  the  editor  of  the  Commentary  justly 
points  out,  "  taken  his  stand  against  the  scholastic  [rather 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  84.         2  Ibid.,  p.  83.         3  Ibid.,  p.  89. 
4  Ibid.,  p.  86  f.        5  Ibid.,  p.  39.     Cp.  "  Ev.  Kirchenztng.,"  1911, 
32,  506. 


220  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

the  Church's]  doctrine  of  salvation  ;  it  is  apparent  at  the 
very  outset  of  the  lectures  that  the  separation  has  already 
taken  place."  It  could  not  be  otherwise,  as  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Commentary  he  already  denies  the  power 
of  man  to  do  what  is  good.  Ficker  also  says  with  truth  : 
"  Luther  again  and  again  comes  back  to  his  oldest  and 
deepest  torment,  viz.  the  struggle  against  free  will  and 
man's  individual  powers";1  his  study  of  St.  Paul  confirms 
his  views,  which  now  take  clearer  shape,  until  finally  "  he 
incontinently  identifies  his  opponents  with  the  Pelagians."2 
With  regard  to  Luther's  tenets  on  faith  in  the  matter 
of  salvation  he  has  so  far  not  departed  in  any  essential  from 
the  accepted  olden  doctrine  that  faith  is  the  commence- 
ment, root  and  foundation  of  salvation. 

The  editor  of  the  Commentary  also  admits,  though  with 
limitations,  the  very  remarkable  fact  that  faith  does  not  yet 
occupy  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans  the  position  which 
Luther  assigns  to  it  later :  "  the  '  fides,'  which  Luther  explains 
with  the  help  of  a  number  of  terms  borrowed  from  his  lectures  on 
the  Psalms,  in  the  exposition  of  the  Pauline  Epistle  does  not  as 
yet  appear  in  its  entire  fulness  and  depth,  as  the  expression  of 
the  relation  of  man  to  the  eternal,  at  least  not  to  the  same  extent 
as  it  does 'later;  frequently  we  have  a  mere  reproduction  of 
the  Pauline  phraseology  ;  there  is  no  lack  of  reminiscences  of 
Augustine,  and  the  results  of  an  Occamist  training  are  also 
apparent."3 

We  certainly  cannot  say  that  at  the  very  beginning  of  the 
Commentary,*  faith  or  even  "sola  fides  "  is  conceded  the  high 
place  which  it  is  afterwards  to  occupy  in  his  system  ;  the  ex- 
pression "  sola  fides  "  occurs  there  by  pure  accident  and  does  not 
bear  its  later  meaning  ;  it  is  only  intended  to  elucidate  a  sentence 
which  in  itself  is  correct  :  "  iustitia  Dei  est  causa  salutis."  By 
this  is  meant  that  "  fides  evangelii  "  to  which,  as  Luther  says, 
Augustine  ascribes  justification,  but  which  the  latter,  according 
to  Luther's  own  admission,  did  not  intend  to  take  in  the  sense 
of  the  later  Lutheran  "  sola  fides."  Above  all,  as  already  pointed 
out,  faith,  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans,  lacks  its  chief 
characteristic  and  does  not  of  itself  alone  produce  an  absolute 
assurance  of  the  state  of  grace.  It  was  only  in  1518  that  Luther 
arrived  at  his  peculiar  belief  in  justification  by  virtue  of  a  con- 
fident faith  in  Christ  (assurance  of  salvation).5 

In  the  Commentary  on  Romans  Luther  understands  by  faith, 
first  the  general  submission  of  the  mind  to  Divine  revelation,  a 

1  Ficker  refers  to  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  23  ff.,  p.  108  ff.,  Ill  seq.,  114 
167,  185,  187,  199,  244,  283,  287,  322  f. 

"  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  322.  3  Ibid.,  p.  Ixxvi. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  14.  5  See  below,  chapter  x. 


FAITH  221 

faith  which  he  here,  as  also  later,  in  agreement  with  the  Church's 
teaching,  accounts  as  the  first  preliminary  for  the  state  of  grace. 
His  opposition  to  works  and  self-righteousness  frequently  urges 
him  to  praise  the  high  value  of  the  faith  which  comes  from  God, 
whilst  his  mysticism  likewise  makes  him  accentuate  the  im- 
portance of  trust  and  blind  submission.  "  Credite,  confidite  "  he 
cries  in  his  exposition  of  the  Psalms — of  which  the  standpoint  is 
still  entirely  that  of  the  Church — also  fervently  recommending  to 
his  hearers  the  "  fiducia  gratice  Dei,"1  All  that  can  be  complained 
of  is  that  there,  as  in  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  he  seizes 
every  occasion  to  speak  in  favour  of  the  advantages  which 
faith  possesses  over  works. 

With  regard  to  his  teaching  on  faith  in  the  Commentary  on 
Romans,  Denifle  complains  of  "  Luther's  want  of  clearness  in 
respect  of  justifying  faith,"  of  his  exaggerations  and  indistinct- 
ness, of  "his  absolute  ignorance  of  wholesome  theology."2 
"  The  medium  in  this  doctrine  of  justification,"  he  says,  "  is 
really  not  faith  at  all,  but  the  confession  that  we  are  always 
under  the  works  of  the  law,  always  unrighteous,  always  sinners  "  ; 
"  he  never,  even  later,  arrived  at  a  correct  or  uniform  idea  of 
faith.  .  .  .  Luther's  assertion  of  the  bondage  of  the  will  (com- 
plete passivity)  renders  faith  in  the  process  of  justification,  a 
mere  monstrosity."3 

Here  we  are  not  as  yet  concerned  with  the  qualities  of  faith  in 
the  Lutheran  process  of  justification,  but  it  must  be  pointed  out, 
that  the  acceptance  of  complete  passivity  in  justification  is  a 
necessary  corollary  of  the  above  ideas  of  "  humilitas."  "  Whereas 
the  Christian,"  Denifle  says,  following  the  Catholic  teaching, 
"  moved  and  inspired  by  the  grace  of  God  repents  of  his  sins,  and, 
with  a  trusting  faith,  turns  to  God  .and  implores  their  pardon, 
Luther  excludes  from  justification  all  acts  whether  inward  or 
outward  on  the  part  of  the  sinner  ;  for  God  could  not  come  into 
our  possession  or  be  attained  to  without  the  suppression  of  every- 
thing that  is  positive.  Our  works  must  cease  and  we  ourselves 
must  remain  passive  in  God's  hands."4  In  the  Commentary  on 
Romans  passivity  in  the  work  of  justification  is  certainly  insisted 
on.  Luther  does  not  take  the  trouble  to  reconcile  this  with  the 
activity  which  man  is  to  exert  in  steeping  himself  in  humility  in 
order,  by  his  prayers  and  supplications,  to  gain  salvation.5  He 
says  of  passivity  :  "  God  cannot  be  possessed  or  touched  except 
by  the  negation  of  everything  that  is  in  us."6  "  Then  only  are  we 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.   ed.,  3,  p.  651  ;   4,  p.  228. 

2  Denifle,  I1,  p.  444. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  605  ff.,  with  his  testimonies.  4  Ibid.,  p.  599. 

5  Cp.  above,  p.  218,  and  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  105  ff. :  "  (sancti)  iusliliam 
a  Deo  secundum  misericordiam  ipsius  implorant,  eo  ipso  semper  quoque 
iusti  a  Deo  reputantur." 

6  "  Schol.   Rom.,"  p.   219.     This  remarkable  passage,  which  is  a 
proof  of  his  pseudo-mysticism,  runs  :    "  Omnis  nostra  affirmatio  boni 
cuiuscunque  sub  negations,  eiusdem  [abscondita  esf]"ut  fides  locum  habeat 
in  Deo,  qui  est  negativa  essentia  [!]  et  bonitas  et  sapientia  et  iustitia  neo 
potest  possideri  out  attingi  nisi  negatis  omnibus  affirmativis  nostria." 


222  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

capable  of  receiving  God's  works  and  plans,  when  our  planning 
and  our  works  cease  ;  when  we  are  altogether  passive  with 
regard  to  God  interiorly  as  well  as  exteriorly."1  In  the  Com- 
mentary on  Galatians,  not  long  after,  he  calls  Christian  righteous- 
ness a  "  passive  righteousness,"  because  we  "  there  do  nothing, 
and  give  God  nothing."2 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  206     Cp.  Denifle,  I1,  p.  600. 

2  In  Gal.,   1,  p.   14.     We    can    understand    that  Protestant  theo- 
logians should  wish  to  find  in  Luther's  Commentary  on  Romans  the 
foundation  of  the  later  so-called  "  Reformed  Confession."     O.  Scheel, 
the    first    among    them  to  treat  in  a  detailed  manner  of  the  Com- 
mentary edited  by  Ficker   ("Die  Entwicklung  Luthers"  ["Schriften 
des  Vereins  fur  Reformationsgesch.,  No.  100"],  p.  174  ff.),  has  brought 
together  a  number  of  passages  from  this  work  concerning  the  doctrine 
of  justification,  which  do  not  quite  agree  with  the  purely  outward 
character  of  justification  according  to  Luther,  dwelt  upon  above,  and 
which  appear  to  presuppose  an  inward  renewal.     In  the  Commentary 
assertions  are  not  wanting  which  contradict  the  ideas  we  have  pointed 
out  as  running  through  the  work  ;  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  author 
repeatedly  reverts    either  to  true  Catholic  views  or  to  nominalistic 
ideas.      It   is   not  surprising   that   contradictions   should   occur  very 
frequently  at  the  commencement  of  his  career,  and  that  they  also  do 
so  at  a  later  period  is  undeniable.     (Cp.  O.  Scheel's  samples  of  Luther's 
Bible- teaching  in  our  volume  iv.,  xxviii.,  1  and  2.) 

Scheel  himself  says  with  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  in 
the  Commentary  :  "  Luther  was  unable  to  give  to  his  new  conception 
of  Christianity  any  thorough  dogmatic  sequence  (p.  182);  "these 
statements  (on  Rom.  iii.)  are  devoid  of  doctrinal  clearness  "  (p.  183). 
According  to  him  it  cannot  be  said  "  that  Luther  has  arrived  at  any 
clear  presentment  of  his  reforming  ideas  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans" 
(p.  186).  In  the  teaching  of  the  Commentary  re  Concupiscence  Scheel 
claims,  it  is  true,  to  find  "  that  deeply  religious  and  moral  conception  of 
a  reformed  Christianity  which  is  peculiar  to  Luther  "  (p.  188),  but, 
nevertheless,  remarks  that  Luther  has  not  found  "  a  quite  uniform 
definition  "  for  "  the  meaning  which  he  connects  with  Concupiscence. 
Even  the  suppression  of  the  guilt  and  the  non-imputing  of  original  sin 
might,  in  view  of  Luther's  new  religious  and  voluntarist  views,  be 
regarded  as  insufficient ;  for  insufficient  importance  attributed  to  the 
connection  between  sin  and  guilt  leads  finally  to  an  impersonal  estimate 
of  sin  "  (pp.  188,  189).  He  stopped  short  at  a  definition  "  in  which  we 
miss  the  severely  voluntarist  connection  between  sin  and  guilt  "  (p.  190). 
The  author  therefore  speaks  of  Luther's  view  of  sin  as  "  insufficient  " 
(p.  191). 

With  regard  to  grace,  he  continues  :  "  Luther's  statements  as  to 
grace  are  also  not  altogether  without  ambiguity  "  (ibid.),  "  he  employs 
the  customary  designations  for  the  action  of  grace,  without  reflecting 
that  they  do  not  correspond  with  his  ethical  and  psychological  views 
of  grace  "  (p.  192).  "  Man's  passivity  in  the  process  of  salvation  which 
he  vindicates,  and  which,  according  to  the  Reformed  Confession,  was 
surely  to  be  taken  religiously,  being  only  intended  to  deny  the  existence 
of  any  claim  to  merit,  he  defends  so  ponderously  that  all  the  psycho- 
logical spontaneity  of  his  voluntarism  disappears  and  Quietist  mysticism 
has  to  supply  him  with  the  colours  necessary  for  depicting  the  appro- 
priation of  grace  "  (ibid.). 

Concerning  the  question  of  assurance  of  salvation  in  the  Commentary 
on  Romans,  Scheel,  indeed,  admits  that  "  Luther  had  not  yet  arrived 


DISREGARDS   CHURCH'S   DOCTRINE    223 

8.  Subjectivism  and  Church  Authority.     Storm  and  Stress 

Subjectivism  plays  an  important  part  in  the  exposition 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

It  makes  itself  felt  not  merely  in  Luther's  treatment  of 
the  Doctors  and  the  prevalent  theological  opinions,  but  also 
in  his  ideas  concerning  the  Church  and  her  authority.  We 
cannot  fail  to  see  that  the  Church  is  beginning  to  take  the 
second  place  in  his  mind.  Notwithstanding  the  numerous 
long-decided  controversial  questions  raised  in  the  Com- 
mentary, there  is  hardly  any  mention  of  the  teaching  office 
of  the  Church,  and  the  reader  is  not  made  aware  that  with 
regard  to  these  questions  there  existed  in  the  Church  a  fixed 
body  of  faith,  established  either  by  actual  definition  or  by 
generally  accepted  theological  opinion.  The  doctrine  of 
absolute  predestination  to  hell,  for  instance,  had  long  before 
been  authoritatively  repudiated  in  the  decisions  against 
Gottschalk,  but  is  nevertheless  treated  by  Luther  as  an 
open  question,  or  rather  as  though  it  had  been  decided  in 
the  affirmative,  thus  making  of  God  a  cruel  avenger  of 
involuntary  guilt. 

The  impetuous  author,  following  his  mistaken  tendency 
to  independence,  disdains  to  be  guided  by  the  heritage  of 
ecclesiastical  and  theological  truth,  as  the  Catholic  professor 
is  wont  to  be  in  his  researches  in  theology  and  in  his  ex- 
planations of  Holy  Scripture.  Luther,  though  by  no  means 
devoid  of  faith  in  the  Church,  and  in  the  existence  in  her  of 
the  living  Spirit  of  God,  lacks  that  ecclesiastical  feeling  which 
inspired  so  many  of  his  contemporaries  in  their  speculations, 
both  theological  and  philosophical ;  we  need  only  recall 
his  own  professor,  Johann  Paltz,  and  Gabriel  Biel  to  whom 
he  owed  so  much.  Impelled  by  his  subjectivism,  and  careless 

at  any  definite  certainty  of  salvation  "  (p.  195),  and  that  his  statements 
are  not  "  in  touch  with  the  saving  faith  of  the  Reformation  "  (ibid.) ;  he 
finds,  however,  in  the  fear  which  Luther  demands,  "  an  element  for 
overcoming  the  uncertainty  with  regard  to  salvation "  (p.  198), 
indeed,  he  even  thinks  (p.  199)  that  "he  had  practically  arrived  at  a 
certainty  of  salvation."  So  much  may  be  admitted,  that  the  incom- 
pleteness of  the  system  contained  in  the  Commentary  led  Luther  at  a 
later  period  to  add  to  his  numerous  other  errors,  that  of  absolute 
certainty  of  salvation  by  "  faith  alone."  With  this  our  position  is 
made  clear  with  regard  to  HolFs  article  "  Heilsgewissheit  im  Romer- 
briefkommentar,"  in  the  "  Zeitschr.  f.  Theol.  und  Kirche,"  20,  1910, 
p.  245  ff.,  where  the  doctrine  of  assurance  is  dated  as  far  back  as  1516 
(p.  290). 


224  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

of  the  teaching  of  preceding  ages,  he  usually  flies  straight 
to  his  own  "  profoundcr  theology  "  for  new  solutions.  Here 
the  habits  engendered  by  the  then  customary  debates  in 
the  schools  exercise  a  detrimental  effect  on  him.  He  is 
heedless  of  the  fact  that  his  hasty  and  bold  assertions  may 
undermine  the  foundations  which  form  the  learned  support 
to  the  Church's  dogmas.  Important  and  assured  truths 
become  to  him,  according  to  this  superficial  method,  mere 
"  soap  bubbles  "  which  his  breath  can  burst,  "  chimeras 
of  fancy  "  which  will  melt  away  in  the  mist.  This  is  the 
case,  for  instance,  with  the  traditional  doctrines  of  saving 
grace,  of  the  distinction  between  original  and  actual  sin, 
and  of  meritorious  good  works.  Whoever  does  not  agree 
with  his  terrible  doctrine  of  predestination  is  simply  reckoned 
among  the  subtle  theologians,  who  are  desirous  of  saving 
everything  with  their  vain  distinctions.1  We  cannot,  of 
course,  measure  Luther  by  the  standard  of  the  Tridentine 
decrees,  which  embodied  these  and  other  questions  in 
distinct  formularies  of  which  the  Church  in  his  time  had 
not  yet  the  advantage.  Yet  the  principal  points  which 
Luther  began  to  agitate  -at  this  time  wrere,  if  not  already 
actual  dogmas,  yet  sufficiently  expressed  in  the  body  of 
the  Church's  teaching  and  illuminated  by  ecclesiastical 
theology. 

That  he  still  adheres  in  the  Commentary  to  the  principle  of 
the  hierarchy  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  he  declares  its 
office  to  be  sublime,  and  loudly  bewails  the  fact  that  so  many 
unworthy  individuals  had  forced  themselves  at  that  time  into 
its  ranks  ;  he  says  in  his  curious  language :  "  It  is  horrifying 
and  the  greatest  of  all  perils  that  there  can  be  in  this  world  or 
the  next  ;  it  is  simply  the  one  biggest  danger  of  all."2  In  the 
hierarchy,  he  says,  God  condescended  to  our  weakness  by  choos- 
ing to  speak  to  us  and  come  to  our  assistance  through  the  medium 
of  men,  and  not  directly,  in  His  unapproachable  and  terrible 
majesty.3 

He  also  recognises  the  various  grades  of  the  hierarchy,  priestly 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  209  f.  :    "  Nostri  theologi  velut  acutuli,"  etc. 
"  Hcec  tantum  vacua  verba  surd"  etc.      "  Est  ridicula  additio  si  dicas," 
etc.      "  Torquent  intelligentiam,"   etc.     Thus  he  arrives  at  his   "  im- 
mutabilis   prcedestinatio."     "  Prcecipit   Deus  ut  irretiantur  reprobi,   ut 
ostendat  iram  suam,"  with  the  pains  of  hell  which  they  are  absolutely 
powerless  to  escape  (p.  213).     See  also  above,  p.  189  ff. 

2  Ibid.,    p.    6.      Against   the    "  mercenarii."     In   Ficker's   text   it 
reads  :     "  qualium  hodie  in  ecclesia  solus  est  mtmerus."    In  place  of 
"  solus  "  read  "  tantus  "  or  some  other  such  word. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  7. 


PREACHERS   TRUE   AND   FALSE    225 

and  episcopal  Orders.  "  The  Church  is  a  general  hospital  for 
healing  those  who  are  spiritually  sick  "  ;*  the  rules  which  she 
gives  to  the  clergy,  the  recital  of  the  Divine  Office  for  instance, 
must  be  obediently  carried  out.2  She  has  a  right  to  temporal 
possessions,  only  "  at  the  present  day  almost  all  declare  these 
to  be  spiritual  things  ;  they,  the  clergy,  are  masters  in  this 
'  spiritual  '  domain  and  are  more  careful  about  it  than  about 
their  real  spiritualities,  or  about  their  use  of  thunderbolts 
[excommunications]  in  the  sentences  pronounced  by  the  Church."3 
According  to  him,  the  prelates  and  the  Church  have  a  perfect 
right  to  condemn  false  teachers  however  much  the  latter  may 
"  utter  their  foolish  cry  of  '  we  have  the  truth,  we  believe,  we 
hear,  we  call  upon  God.'  >J  "  Just  as  though  they  must  be  of 
God  because  they  seem  to  themselves  to  be  of  God.  No,  we  have 
an  authority  which  has  been  implanted  in  the  Church,  and  the 
Roman  Church  has  this  authority  in  her  hands.  Therefore  the 
preachers  of  the  Church,  unless  they  fall  into  error,  preach  with 
assurance  [on  account  of  their  commission].  But  false  teachers 
are  pleased  with  their  own  words,  because  they  are  according  to 
their  own  ideas.  They  appear  to  demand  the  greatest  piety,  but 
are  themselves  governed  by  their  own  opinion,  and  their  self- 
will."4  "Whoever  declares  that  he  is  sent  by  God  must  either 
give  proof  of  his  mission  by  wonders  and  heavenly  testimony, 
as  the  Apostles  did,  or  he  must  be  recognised  and  commissioned  by 
an  authority  confirmed  by  Heaven.  In  the  latter  case,  he  must 
stand  and  teach  in  humble  subjection  to  such  authority,  ever 
ready  to  submit  to  its  judgment  ;  he  must  speak  what  he  is 
commissioned  to  speak  and  not  what  his  own  taste  leads  him  to 
invent.  .  .  .  Anathema  is  the  weapon,"  he  exclaims — un- 
conscious of  his  own  future — "  which  lays  low  the  heretics."6 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p   111.  2  Ibid.,  p.  290.    Cp.  p.  317. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  294  f.  *  Ibid.,  p.  248  f. 

6  Ibid.  Of  the  true  preacher  he  says  :  "  Sub  humili  subiectione 
eiusdem  auctoritatia  procdicet,  semper  stare  iudicio  illius  paratus  ac, 
qua  mandata  ei  aunt,  loqui,  non  quce  plocita  aunt  sibi  ac  inventa."  The 
punishment  threatened  by  Zach.  xiii.  3  against  false  prophets 
("  configent  eum  "),  was  to  be  applied  to  those  who  teach  subversive 
doctrines  on  their  own  authority,  being  the  anathema  of  their  ecclesias- 
tical superiors.  "Hoc  eat  telum  fortissimum,  quo  percutiuntur  hceretici, 
quia  sine  testimonio  Dei  vel  authoritas  a  Deo  confirmatce,  sed  proprio 
motu,  specie  pietatis  erecti,  prcedicant,  ut  ler.  xxiii.  (v.  21) :  Ipsi  currebant 
et  ego  non  mittebam  eoa.  Et  tamen  audent  dicere  :  Nos  salvabimur  .  .  . 
nos  credimus  .  .  .  prcedicamus.  Sed  hoc  dicere  non  possunt  :  Nos 
prcedicamus,  quia  misai  aumua.  Hie,  hie  iocent  !  Et  hie  eat  tola  via  et 
solus,  sine  quo  cetera  falsa  sunt,  licet  an  falsa  sint  non  cogitent."  The 
Church  preaches  an  authentic  gospel,  which,  according  to  Romans  i.  2, 
was  introduced  into  the  world  with  solemn  sanction  and  according  to 
prophecy.  But  the  gospel  of  the  heretic  ?  "  Monstret,  ubi  sit  ante 
promissum  et  a  quo."  Where  is  its  attestation  ?  "  Sed  horum  illi  nihil 
solliciti  stulte  dicunt  :  Nos  veritatem  habemus.  .  .  .  Quasi  hoc  satis  sit 
ex  Deo  ease,  quia  ipsis  ita  ex  Deo  videatur  ease.  .  .  .  Sic  ergo  authoritas 
ecclesicB  instituta,  ut  nunc  adhuc  "Romano,  tenet  ecclesia."  The  heretics, 
it  is  true,  assert  that  they  are  in  possession  of  the  really  wholesome 

I.— Q 


226  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Whenever  he  gets  the  chance  he  magnifies  the  corruption 
of  the  Church  so  much  that  his  expressions  might  lead  one 
to  suppose  that  the  saving  institution  founded  by  Christ 
was  either  completely  decayed  and  fallen  away  or  was  at 
least  on  the  road  to  forsaking  its  vocation  as  teacher  and 
as  the  guardian  of  morals.  His  complaints  may,  it  is  true, 
be  in  part  accounted  for  by  the  impetuosity  which  carries 
him  away  and  by  his  rhetorical  turn.  He  probably  did 
not  at  that  time  really  think  that  a  healthy  reformation 
from  within  was  absolutely  impossible.  Still,  had  anyone 
attempted  to  carry  out  his  immature  and  excessive  demands 
for  reform,  they  would  hardly  have  achieved  much  in  the 
way  of  a  real  regeneration.  His  ideas  of  a  radical  change 
were  deeply  ingrained  in  his  mind ;  this  we  naturally  gather 
from  his  bringing  them  forward  so  frequently  and  under 
such  varied  forms.  In  his  mystical  moods  he  sees  the  errors 
and  abuses  opposed  to  the  "  Word  "  swollen  into  a  veritable 
"  deluge  "  ;  his  professorial  chair  is  only  just  above  the 
waves.  Hence  he  will  cry  out  as  loudly  as  he  can.  In  his 
voice  we  can,  however,  detect  a  false  note,  and  his  ex- 
aggerations and  all  his  stormings  do  not  avail  to  inspire 
us  with  confidence.  He  is  too  full  of  his  own  subjectivity, 
too  impetuous  and  passionate  to  be  a  reformer,  though  his 
other  gifts  might  have  fitted  him  for  the  office.  His  very 
sensitiveness  to  neglect  of  duty  in  others,  had  it  been  puri- 
fied and  disciplined,  aided  by  his  eloquence,  might  have 
been  able  to  inaugurate  a  movement  of  reform.  In  many 
of  his  sayings  he  comes  nigh  the  position  of  a  Catholic 
reformer,  and  even,  at  times,  makes  exaggerated  demands 
on  obedience  and  the  need  of  feeling  with  the  Church.1 

We  may  add  the  following  to  the  complaints  above 
mentioned,  as  occurring  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans 
with  regard  to  the  state  of  the  Church. 


teaching.  "  Volunt  autem  summam  pietatem,  ut  sibi  videtur"  But  the 
decision  does  not  rest  here  with  man's  own  feelings  ;  on  the  contrary, 
the  Word  of  God  frequently  overthrows  man's  own  opinion  :  "  non 
sinit  stare  sensum  nostrum,  etiam  in  Us  quce  sunt  [i.e.  videntur]  sanc- 
tissima,  sed  destruit  ac  eradicat  ac  dissipat  omnia."  How  powerfully 
and  thoughtfully  is  he  able  to  handle  an  argument  when  he  has  right 
on  his  side  !  Could  anyone  condemn  more  strongly  his  own  later 
attitude  ? 

1  How,  for  instance,  he  exaggerates  in  his  mystical  enthusiasm  the 
principle  of  authority,  see  below,  p.  252. 


RAMPANT   FORMALISM  227 

"  The  Pope  and  the  chief  pastors  of  the  Church,"  so  runs 
Luther's  general  and  bitter  charge,  "  have  become  corrupt  and 
their  works  are  deserving  of  malediction  ;  they  stand  forth  at 
the  present  day  as  seducers  of  the  Christian  people  "  ("  seducii  et 
seducentes  populum  Christi  a  vera  cultura  Dei").1  He  waxes 
eloquent  not  only  against  their  too  frequent  granting  of  in- 
dulgences— from  which  in  their  avarice  they  derived  worldly 
profit  for  the  Church — but  also  against  their  luxurious  lives 
which  fill  the  whole  world  with  the  vices  of  Sodom,  and  others 
too  ;  under  their  wicked  stewardship  the  faithful  throughout  the 
Church  have  altogether  forgotten  what  good  works,  faith  and 
humility  are,  and  make  their  eternal  salvation  depend  upon 
external  observances  and  foolish  legends.  Even  those  who  have 
more  insight  and  are  better  men,  are  all  self-righteous  and  more 
like  idolaters  than  Christians. 

The  Apostle  Paul,  he  says,  expounds  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  the  command  of  loving  our  neighbour  (xii.  6  seq.),  but 
is  this  followed  by  the  Church  ?  Instead  of  fulfilling  it  "  we  busy 
ourselves  with  trivialities,  build  churches,  increase  the  possessions 
of  the  Church,  heap  money  together,  multiply  the  ornaments  and 
vessels  of  silver  and  gold  in  the  churches,  erect  organs  and  other 
pomps  which  please  the  eye.  We  make  piety  to  consist  in  this. 
But  where  is  the  man  who  sets  himself  to  carry  out  the  Apostle's 
exhortations,  not  to  speak  of  the  great  prevailing  vices  of  pride, 
arrogance,  avarice,  immorality  and  ambition."2  Not  long  after 
this  outburst,  speaking  in  a  milder  strain,  he  says  :  "  We  exalt 
ourselves  so  as  to  instruct  the  whole  world,  and  hardly  under- 
stand ourselves  what  we  are  teaching."  "  People  without  train- 
ing or  knowledge  of  the  world,  sent  by  their  bishops  and  religious 
superiors,  undertake  to  instruct  men,  but  really  only  add  to  the 
number  of  chatterers  and  windbags."3 

On  another  occasion  he  declares,  people  think  bustle  in  the 
church,  loud  organ  playing  and  pompous  solemnities  at  Mass 
are  all  that  is  needed  ;  for  such  things  collections  are  made, 
whereas  alms-giving  for  the  relief  of  our  neighbour  is  not  ac- 
counted anything.  Nothing  is  thought  of  swearing,  lying  or 
backbiting,  even  on  Feast  Days,  but  if  anyone  eats  flesh-meat  or 
eggs  on  a  Friday,  he  gives  great  scandal,  so  unreasonable  are 
all  people  nowadays  ("  adeo  nunc  omnes  desipiunt").  What  is 
needed  to-day  is  to  do  away  with  the  Fast  Days  and  to  abrogate 
many  of  the  Festivals  .  .  .  the  whole  Christian  Code  ought  to  be 
purified  and  changed,  and  the  solemnities,  ceremonies,  devotions 
and  the  adorning  of  the  churches  reduced.  But  all  this  is  on  the 
increase  daily,  so  that  faith  and  charity  are  stifled,  and  avarice, 
arrogance  and  worldliness  grow  apace.  What  is  worse,  the  faith- 
ful hope  to  find  in  this  their  eternal  salvation  and  do  not  trouble 
about  the  inner  man.4 

The  lawyers,  he  says,  speaking  in  a  mystical  vein,  act  quite 
wrongly  when,  as  soon  as  they  see  that  anyone  has  the  law  on  his 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  243.         2  Ibid.,  p.  275  f. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  278  *  Ibid.,  p.  317. 


228  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

side,  they  encourage  him  to  assert  his  rights  ("  qui  statim  quod 
secundum  iura  iustum  sciunt,  prosequendum  suadent  ").  "  On 
the  contrary,  every  Christian  should  rejoice  in  suffering  injustice, 
even  in  matters  of  the  greatest  moment  ('  quoad  maximas  iustitias 
nostras ').  .  .  .  But  almost  the  whole  world  runs  after  the 
contrary  error  [i.e.  sternly  asserts  its  rights].  Cardinals,  bishops, 
princes  act  like  the  Jews  did  to  the  King  of  Babylon  (2  Kings  xxiv. 
20  ;  xxv.  1  ff.)  ;  they  cling  to  their  petty  privileges,  lose  sight  of 
morality  and  so  perish."  Someone  should  have  told  Duke 
George  (of  Saxony)  when  he  fought  against  the  Duke  of  Frisia  : 
"  Your  own  and  your  people's  deserts  are  not  so  great  that  you 
should  not  rather  have  patiently  allowed  yourself  to  be  chastised 
by  that  rebel,  who,  though  unrighteous,  was  the  executor  of  God's 
righteous  judgment.  Calm  yourself  therefore  and  acknowledge 
the  Will  of  God."1 

He  says  something  similar  to  his  own  bishop,  Hieronymus 
Schulz  (Scultetus)  of  Brandenburg,2  and  to  another  bishop, 
probably  Wilhelm  von  Honstein,  Bishop  of  Strasburg.  The 
latter  had  put  in  force  the  ecclesiastical  statutes  against  the 
inf ringers  of  the  sanctity  of  the  church.  Luther  says  :  "  Why 
trouble  a  town  with  this  wretched  matter  ?  It  is  merely  a 
question  of  human  regulations  ;  but  if  the  bishop  desired  to 
enforce  God's  laws,  he  would  not  need  to  leave  his  own  house ;  he 
is  not  indeed  acting  wrongly,  but  he  is  swallowing  a  camel  and 
straining  at  gnats  (Matt,  xxiii.  24).  .  .  .  But  the  bishops  thirst 
for  vengeance,  they  brand  the  criminals  and  themselves  deserve 
to  be  worse  branded.  Would  to  God  that  the  time  may 
come  when  rights  and  privileges  and  all  who  worship  them  are 
consigned  to  perdition  !  Ambition  and  unbelief  should  not  be 
allowed  to  triumph  over  those  condemned  for  transgressing  the 
statutes."3 

"  I  say  this  with  pain,  but  I  am  obliged  to  because  I  have 
an  Apostolic  commission  to  teach.  My  duty  is  to  point  out  to 
all  the  wrong  they  are  committing,  even  to  those  in  high  places."1 

In  accordance  with  this,  the  young  Professor  loudly  blames 
Pope  Julius  II.  In  his  quarrel  with  the  Republic  of  Venice 
"  this  advice  should  have  been  given  him  :  '  Holy  Father,  Venice 
is  doing  you  a  wrong,  but  the  Roman  Church  deserves  it  on 
account  of  her  faults,  yea,  she  deserves  even  worse.  Therefore 
do  nothing,  such  is  the  Will  of  God.'  But  the  Pope  replied  :  '  No, 
no,  let  us  vindicate  our  rights  by  force.'  "5  "  He  chastised  them 
[the  Venetians]  with  great  bloodshed  because  they  had  sinned 
grievously  arid  seized  upon  the  possessions  of  the  Church  ;  he 
brought  them  back  to  the  Church  and  so  gained  great  merit. 
But  the  horrible  corruption  of  the  Papal  Curia  and  the  mountain 
of  the  most  terrible  immorality,  pomp,  avarice,  ambition  and 
sacrilege  is  accounted  no  sin."8 

On  another  occasion,  after  a  no  less  forcible  outburst  against 
Rome,  he  demands  the  abolition  of  "  false  piety  "  :  This  so-called 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  271  f.         2  Ibid.,  p.  272.         3  Ibid.,  p.  300  f. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  301.  6  Ibid.,  p.  272.         6  Ibid.,  p.  301  f. 


THE   FREEDOM  OF  THE   SPIRIT   229 

piety  must  no  longer  be  permitted,  as  though  it  were  merely  a 
weakness  ;  but  in  Rome  they  do  not  trouble  about  doing  away 
with  it,  there  is  there  nothing  but  the  freedom  of  the  flesh  ; 
"  almost  all  are  wanting  in  charity."  "  I  fear  that  in  these  days 
we  are  all  on  the  road  to  utter  destruction."1 

We  must  listen,  he  says — alluding  to  the  formalism  which 
he  thinks  is  apparent  everywhere- — to  the  "  inward  word," 
which  often  speaks  to  us  quite  differently  from  the  injunc- 
tions to  which  we  are  accustomed.  "  The  wisdom  of  fools 
always  looks  more  to  the  work  than  to  the  word  ;  it  thinks 
itself  able  to  gauge  the  meaning  and  value  of  the  word  from 
the  value  or  worthlessness  of  the  deeds  "  ;  what  we  should 
do  is  the  contrary ;  the  precious,  inestimable  word  must 
always  resound  in  our  hearts  and  direct  all  our  outward 
actions.2  The  "  spirit  of  the  believer  is  subject  to  no  one," 
"  the  spirit  is  free  as  regards  all  things  "  ;  "all  exterior 
things  are  free  to  those  who  are  in  the  spirit."  "  The  bondage 
[of  charity]  is  the  highest  liberty."  3 

Such  words  form  a  quite  obvious  preliminary  to  the 
"  Evangelical  freedom  "  which  he  was  afterwards  to  vindi- 
cate. He  thus  gives  a  much  wider  application  to  the  ideas 
he  had  met  with  in  Tauler  than  was  in  the  mind  of  that 
pious  mystic.  Tauler  writes  :  "I  tell  you  that  you  must 
not  submit  your  inner  man  to  anyone,  but  to  God  only. 
But  your  exterior  man  you  must  submit  in  a  true  and  real 
humility  to  God  and  to  all  creatures."4  Luther  says 
what  on  the  surface  seems  quite  similar  :  the  Christian  is 
free  and  master  of  all  things  and  is  subject  to  no  one  (by 
faith),  and  yet  at  the  same  time  a  willing  servant  of  all  and 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  320.    It  cannot  be  proved  that  such  gloomy  fore- 
bodings were  due  to  the  influence  of  the  apocalyptic  literature  then  so 
widely  disseminated  in  print.     (See  Ficker,  p.  xcix.)     The  verdict  which 
he  passes  on  the  Church  of  that  day  is,  however,  as  severe  and  compre- 
hensive as  "  the  sharpest  criticisms  of  the  Reformed  theology,  or  of  the 
apocalyptic   literature "    (ibid.,    p.    xcvii.) ;     the    verdict    is   really  a 
consequence  of  his  "  new  conception  of  a  personal  religion  "  (p.  xci.). 
On  the  strength  of  this  Ficker  thinks  he  may  go  so  far  as  to  say  :   "  Just 
as,   hitherto,   he   had   confronted  the   teaching  authorities   with   the 
Scripture  rightly  understood  and  opened  up  the  religion  of  the  gospel 
to  the  individual,  bringing  it  home  to  each  one  as  a  moral  force,  so  now 
under  the  pressure  of  the  Scripture  and  of  outward  events,  he  sets  up 
the  new  standard  of  Christian  life  .  .  .  thus  realising  in  practice  the 
religion  he  had  discovered  "  (pp.  xci.,  xcvi.). 

2  Ibid.,  p.  242. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  298,  302,  303. 

*  Cp.  Braun,  "  Concupiscenz,"  p.  285. 


230  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

subject  to  all  (by  charity).1  Yet,  both  in  the  Commentary 
on  Romans  and  in  the  works  which  were  soon  to  follow, 
"  the  willing  servant  "  is  more  and  more  ousted  by  false 
ideas  of  independence,  so  that  a  danger  arises  of  only  the 
"  free  master  of  all  things  "  remaining.  In  the  Commentary 
on  Romans  all  exterior  submission  to  the  Church  is,  in 
principle,  menaced  by  a  liberty  which,  appealing  to  the 
inward  experience  of  the  Word  and  a  deeper  conception  of 
religion,  seeks  to  overstep  all  barriers. 

The  confused  ideas  for  which  he  was  beholden  to  his 
pseudo-mysticism  were  in  great  part  the  cause  of  this  and 
of  other  errors. 

9.  The  Mystic  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans 

Since  the  appearance  in  print  of  Luther's  Commentary  on 
Romans  it  has  been  possible  to  perceive  more  clearly  the 
ominous  power  which  false  mysticism  had  gained  over  the 
young  author. 

His  misapprehension  of  some  of  the  principal  elements 
of  Tauler's  sermons  and  of  the  "  Theologia  Deutsch  "  stands 
out  in  sharp  relief  in  these  lectures  on  the  Pauline  Epistle, 
and  we  see  more  plainly  how  the  obscure  ideas  he  finds  in 
the  mystics  at  once  amalgamate  with  his  own.  The  con- 
nection between  the  pseudo-mysticism  which  he  has  built 
up  on  the  basis  of  true  mysticism,  and  the  method  of  theology 
which  he  is  already  pursuing,  appears  here  so  great,  and  he 
follows  so  closely  the  rather  elastic  figures  and  thoughts 
provided  by  the  mystical  science  of  the  soul,  that  we  are 
almost  tempted,  after  reading  his  exposition  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  to  ask  whether  all  his  intellectual  mistakes 
were  not  an  outcome  of  his  mysticism.  The  fact  is,  however, 
that  he  began  his  study  of  mysticism  only  after  having 
commenced  formulating  the  principles  of  his  new  world 
of  thought.  It  was  only  after  the  ferment  had  gone  on 
working  for  a  considerable  time  that  he  chanced  upon  certain 
mystic  works.  Yet,  strange  to  say,  the  mysticism  with 
which  he  then  became  acquainted  was  not  that  German 
variety  which  had  already  been  infected  with  the  errors 
of  Master  Eckhart,  but  the  sounder  mysticism  which  had 
avoided  the  pitfalls.  It  is  a  tragic  coincidence  that  mysti- 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed  ,  7,  p.  49.    De  libertate  Christiana. 


QUIETISM  231 

cism,  the  most  delicate  blossom  of  the  theology  of  the  Middle 
Ages  and  of  true  Catholicism,  should  have  served  to  confirm 
him  in  so  many  errors.  True  mysticism  has  in  all  ages  been 
a  protest  against  all  moral  cowardice  and  inertia,  against 
tepidity  and  self-complacent  mediocrity  ;  false  mysticism, 
on  the  other  hand,  debases  itself  to  Quietism  and  even  to 
Antinomianism  ;  the  world  has  lived  to  see  pseudo-mysti- 
cism deny  evil  the  better  to  permit  it. l  Even  true  mysticism 
is  constantly  open  to  the  danger  not  only  of  conscious  and 
intentional  exaggeration  of  its  theses,  but  of  unintentional 
misapprehension. 

Misapprehension  is  a  misfortune  to  which  mysticism  was 
ever  exposed,  owing  mainly  to  the  inadequacy  of  human 
language  to  express  the  mystic's  thoughts,2  whereas  Schol- 
asticism, thanks  to  its  clear-cut  terminology,  has  been 
spared  such  a  fate,  and  for  the  same  reason  has  never  been 
in  favour  with  confused  and  cloudy  minds.  Tauler  had 
originally  been  trained  in  the  Scholasticism  of  St.  Thomas 
of  Aquin,  and  in  the  teaching  of  the  Frankfort  author  of 
the  "  Theologia  Deutsch  "  the  true  principles  of  the  old 
school  still  shine  out.  This,  however,  did  not  save  these 
writers  from  having  formerly  been  considered,  by  Protestants, 
precursors  of  Luther's  doctrines.  Denifle,  by  his  studies 
on  these  and  the  later  mystics,  threw  such  valuable  light 
on  the  subject  that  the  Protestant  theologian  Wilhelm 
Braun,  in  the  work  he  recently  devoted  to  tracing  the 
development  of  Luther,  says  :  "  it  is  wrong  for  Protestants 
to  claim  mysticism  as  a  pre-Reformation  reforming  move- 
ment ;  this  Denifle  has  proved  in  his  epoch-making  re- 
searches."3 

False  Passivity 

As  regards  the  important  new  data  furnished  by  the 
Commentary  on  Romans  on  Luther's  mysticism,  the  editor 
himself  admits  in  the  preface  that  "  the  ideal  of  resignation 
[preached  by  the  Catholic  mystics]  was  raised  by  Luther 
to  an  unconditional  passivity  and  to  a  real  system  of 
Quietism,  which  he  completely  identified  with  the  theme  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  with  the  piety  of  St.  Augustine. 
In  this  he  found  the  bond  of  union  combining  all  his  ex- 

1  Cp.  J.  Zahn,  "  Einfuhrung  in  die  christl.  Mystik,"  p.  102. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  271  ff. 

3  Braun,  "  Concupiscenz,"  p.  301,  n.  2 


232  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

periences.  Mysticism  it  is  which  lends  its  deep  and  fiery 
hue  to  his  thoughts  ;  where  Luther  is  describing  the  most 
intimate  processes  and  gives  their  highest  expression  to  the 
thoughts  which  inspire  him,  it  is  mysticism  which  is  speaking 
through  him  .  .  .  the  complete  and  unconditional  surrender 
of  man  to  God."1 

Luther  gives  in  a  peculiar  fashion  his  reasons  for  taking  such 
a  standpoint  :  "  The  Nature  of  God  demands  that  He  should 
first  destroy  and  annihilate  everything  there  is  in  us  before  He 
imparts  His  gifts.  For  it  is  written  :  '  The  Lord  maketh  poor 
and  maketh  rich,  He  bringeth  down  to  hell  and  bringeth  back 
again.'  By  this  most  gracious  plan  He  renders  us  fit  for  the 
reception  of  His  gifts  and  His  works.  We  are  then  receptive 
to  His  works  and  plans  when  our  own  plans  and  our  own  works 
have  ceased,  and  we  become  quite  passive  towards  God  ('  quando 
nostra  consilia  cessant  et  opera  quiescunt  et  efficimur  pure  passivi 
respectu  Dei  ')  both  as  regards  exterior  and  interior  activity. 
.  .  .  Then  the  '  utterable  sighs  '  commence,  then  '  the  Spirit 
comes  and  helps  our  infirmity.'  "2  It  is  in  the  description  of 
this  "  suffering  and  bearing  of  God  "  that  he  expressly  quotes 
Tauler  as  the  teacher  of  the  higher  form  of  prayer,  adding  : 
"  Yes,  yes,  '  we  know  not  how  we  should  pray,'  therefore  the 
Spirit  is  necessary  to  assist  us  in  our  weakness."  "  As  a  woman 
remains  passive  in  conception,  so  we  must  remain  passive  to 
the  first  grace  and  eternal  salvation.  For  our  soul  is  Christ's 
bride.  Before  grace,  it  is  true,  we  pray  and  implore,  but  when 
grace  conies  and  the  soul  is  to  be  impregnated  by  the  Spirit,  then 
it  must  neither  pray  nor  act,  but  only  endure.  To  the  soul  this 
seems  hard  and  it  is  downcast,  for  that  the  soul  should  be  without 
act  of  the  understanding  and  the  will,  that  is  much  like  sinking 
into  darkness,  destruction  and  annihilation  ( '  in  perditionem  et 
annihilationem  ')  ;  from  this  prospect  she  shrinks  back  in  horror, 
but  in  so  doing  she  often  deprives  herself  of  the  most  precious 
gifts  of  grace."3 

It  was  just  on  this  point  that  Luther  most  completely  mis- 
apprehended Tauler.  It  is  true  that  this  mediaeval  mystic  speaks 
strongly  against  any  too  great  esteem  of  human  activity,  and 
that  he  also  recommends  the  spiritual  man,  in  certain  circum- 
stances, to  "  refuse  all  exterior  works  the  better  to  devote  himself 
with  the  necessary  submission  and  in  entire  peace  "  to  interior 
communication  with  his  Maker  and  Highest  Good,  and,  as  he 
says,  "  to  suffer  God."4  But  he  does  not  thereby  recommend 
man  to  long  after  a  state  without  thought  or  will,  or  after  mere 
nothingness — in  order  to  magnify  God  and  His  powers  alone  ; 
according  to  Tauler,  grace  does  not  work  in  the  soul  "  without 
the  co-operation  of  the  understanding  and  the  will." 

1  P  Ixxxii.  2  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  203. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  205,  206. 

4  Cp.  Braun,  "  Concupiscenz,"  p.  281,  286. 


MANKIND  UTTERLY   CORRUPT  [?]  233 

The  Quenching  of  the  "  Good  Spark  in  the  Soul  " 

Luther  in  the  above  recommendation  to  passivity  falsely 
assumes  that  the  soul  is  entirely  corrupted  by  original  sin 
and  only  offends  God  with  its  acts.  This  also  appears  clearly 
in  the  Commentary  on  Romans.  Protestants  themselves 
now  admit  that  Luther  deviated  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
orthodox  mystics,  particularly  from  that  of  Tauler,  and 
that  "  in  the  view  of  the  mystics  of  the  Middle  Ages  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  natural  good  in  man  outweighs  the 
natural  evil.  The  central  point  in  which  all  the  lines  of 
mystic  theology  converge  is  this  indestructible  goodness." 
So  speaks  a  Protestant  theologian.1 

In  Gerson,  the  mystic  whom  Luther  had  studied  in  his  early 
days  at  Erfurt,  he  must  have  met  with  the  beautiful  teaching, 
that  the  soul  had  received  from  God  a  natural  tendency  towards 
what  is  good,  that  this  is  "  the  virginal  portion  of  the  soul," 
which  is  the  "  source  and  seat  of  mystical  theology."2  Tauler 
is  fond  of  treating  of  this  "  noble  spark  of  fire  in  the  soul,"  of 
'-this  interior  nobility  which  lies  hidden  in  the  depths."3  The 
Scholastics,  too,  unanimously  teach  this  disposition  to  good 
which  remains  after  original  sin. 

Luther,  when  opposing  the  good  tendency,  attacks  only  the 
Scholastics,  not  the  mystics  ;  he  declares  that  all  the  errors  on 
grace  and  nature  which  he  has  to  withstand  entered  through  the 
hole  which  the  Scholastics  made  with  their  "  syntheresis."* 
One  thing  is  certain,  viz.  that  he  was  wrong  in  foisting  his  view 
of  the  absolute  corruption  of  the  human  race  on  the  mystics  ; 
"  he  could  not,"  the  Protestant  theologian  above  referred  to 
admits,  "  quite  truthfully  invoke  the  support  of  the  mystics  for 
his  assertions."5  The  doctrines  which  Tauler  advances  in  the 
very  context  in  which  his  blame  of  the  self-righteous  occurs, 
viz.  that  there  is  no  righteousness  without  personal  acts,  that 
even  the  sinner  can  do  what  is  good,  that  he,  more  especially, 
must  prepare  himself  for  the  grace  of  justification,  pass  unheeded 
in  Luther's  exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  "  Luther 
overlooked  this  series  [of  testimonies  given  by  Tauler]  ;  only 
the  statements  regarding  the  righteous  by  works  made  any  im- 
pression on  him  ;  his  polemics  are  directed  against  those  who 
serve  two  masters,  who  wish  to  please  God  and  the  world  and 
to  do  great  things  for  God's  sake  ;  these  are  the  people  who  are 
at  heart  satisfied  with  themselves."6 

1  Braun,  p.  296.  2  Ibid.,  p.  297.  3  Ibid. 

4  On  the  syntheresis,   see   above,   p.    75.      When   Luther,   on  the 
strength  of  Romans  ii.,  nevertheless,  recognises  "  that  natural  religion 
exerts  the.  force  of  conscience  in  the  hearts  of  the  heathen,"  he  is 
contradicting  himself  without  being  aware  of  it.    (Braun,  p.  300.) 

5  Braun,  p.  296.  •  Ibid.,  p.  284. 


234  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Tauler  repeatedly  uses  the  word  "  spirit  "  for  man's  native 
good  tendency  and  activity.  This  expression  Luther  simply 
takes  to  mean  the  Divine  Spirit,  which  must  be  infused  into  man 
on  account  of  his  natural  helplessness.  The  theologian  mentioned 
above  here  also  admits  :  "  Much  that  Tauler  intended  to  refer 
to  the  human  syntheresis,  or  the  created  spirit,  Luther  has 
ascribed  to  the  uncreated  Divine  Spirit,  who  imparts  grace  and 
faith  "  j1  on  the  other  hand  we  may  allow  with  the  same  author 
that  Luther  was  probably  misled  by  the  "  hermaphrodism  of 
Tauler's  teaching,  according  to  which  the  spirit  longs  for  a 
metamorphosis "  ;  Tauler's  lively  description  of  the  super- 
natural being  and  life  of  the  soul  sometimes  throws  into  the 
background  the  independence  of  its  action  in  the  natural  sphere, 
though  the  outcome  is  not  really  an  "  hermaphrodite  "  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  word.  It  is  also  true  that  "  Luther  overlooked 
the  other  side,  namely,  the  Divine  immanence  which  all  those 
mystics  teach  with  equal  distinctness,2  or  at  least  he  did  not 
make  sufficient  account  of  it. 

Selfishness  and  the  "  Theology  of  the  Cross  " 

Another  important  point  on  which  Luther  deviated  from 
true  mysticism  has  now  been  brought  to  light  by  the  Com- 
mentary on  Romans.  According  to  the  Strasburg  mystic, 
and  according  to  all  good  mystics  generally,  selfishness  must 
be  looked  on  as  the  greatest  interior  enemy  of  man.  It  is  a 
leaven  which  readily  infects  the  actions,  even  of  the  best, 
and  therefore  must  be  expelled  by  struggling  against  it  and 
by  prayer. 

Selfishness,  says  the  "  Theologia  Deutsch,"  "  makes  the  crea- 
ture turn  away  from  the  unchangeable  good  to  that  which  is 
changeable."  Even  in  the  case  of  the  devil,  it  tells  us,  the  reason 
of  his  fall  was  "  his  I  and  my,  his  mine  and  me  "  ;  he  fancied 
he  was  something,  that  something  belonged  to  him  and  that  he 
had  a  right  to  something.3 

In  the  Commentary  on  Romans  Luther  also  speaks  in  im- 
pressive words  against  selfishness  and  its  malice.*  He  makes 

1  Braun,  p.  301.          2  Ibid.  3  Cp.  ibid.,  pp.  287,  288. 

4  For  instance,  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  136  ff.  :  "  Natura  nostra  vitio 
primi  peccati  tarn  profunda  est  in  seipsam  incurva,  ut  non  solum  optima 
dona  Dei  sibi  inflectat  .  .  .  verum  etiam  hoc  ipsum  ignoret.  .  .  .  Hoc 
vitium  propriissimo  nomine  Scriptura  Aon,  id  est  iniquitatem,  pravita- 
tem,  curvitatem  appellat.  .  .  .  Talis  curvitas  est  necessario  inimica 
crucis,  cum  crux  morti fleet  omnia  nostra,  ilia  autem  se  et  sua  vivi fleet." 
Therefore  it  is  necessary  (and  here  he  conies  to  his  personal  ideas 
against  the  self-righteous)  to  reach  a  point  where,  "  iustitia  et  sapientia 
omnis  devoratur  et  absorbetur.  .  .  .  Charitas  Dei  exlinguit  fruitionem 
proprice  iustitice,  quia  non  nisi  solum  et  purum  Deum  diligit,  non  dona 
ipsa  Dei,  sicut  hipocritce  iustitiarii."  "  What  Luther  says  of  pure  love," 


THE   CROSS   AND   ITS   FOES        235 

use  of  every  note  at  his  command  in  order  to  warn  us  against 
this  serpent.  In  these  passages  we  might  fancy  we  hear  the 
voices  of  the  mystic  leaders  of  the  faithful  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
even  of  a  Bernard  of  Clairvaux.  Nor  is  practical  advice  wanting  ; 
we  are  exhorted  to  earnest,  humble  prayer,  to  a  watchful  re- 
sistance— to  be  strengthened  by  practice — against  the  desires 
of  self-love,  even  in  small  things,  to  mortify  and  to  tame  our 
flesh.  We  must  go  out  of  ourselves  even  in  spiritual  matters  ; 
everything,  he  says,  depends  in  the  spiritual  life  on  self-abnega- 
tion :  "  God's  righteousness  fills  those  only  who  seek  to  empty 
themselves  of  their  own  righteousness,  He  fills  the  hungry  and 
the  thirsty  ...  let  us  then  tell  God,  so  he  says  with  all  the 
enthusiasm  his  idea  of  grace  gives  him  :  "  how  glad  are  we  to  be 
empty,  that  Thou  mayest  be  our  fulness  ;  how  glad  to  be  weak, 
that  Thy  strength  may  dwell  within  us  ;  how  glad  to  be  sinners, 
that  Thou  mayest  be  justified  in  us  ;  how  glad  to  be  fools,  that 
Thou  mayest  be  our  wisdom  ;  how  glad  to  be  unrighteous,  that 
Thou  mayest  be  our  righteousness."1  Suffering  sent  by  God, 
so  the  author  frequently  repeats  almost  in  Tauler's  words,  is  to 
be  accepted  as  a  remedy  against  the  disease  of  self-love  not  only 
with  patience,  but  with  joy.  Pain,  particularly  inward  pain, 
should  be  honoured  like  the  cross  of  Christ  ("  tribulatio  velut 
crux  Christi  adoranda  ")  ;2  we  must  bear  it  bravely  like  true 
children  of  God  and  not  take  to  flight  like  the  servant,  or  the 
hireling.3 

In  connection  with  selfishness  Luther  exposes  his  so- 
called  "  theologia  crucis"  which,  with  the  adjuncts  he  gives 
it,  is  quite  in  keeping  with  his  ideas.  He  was  also  to  advocate 
the  theology  of  the  cross  in  his  disputations,  endeavouring 
to  show  that  it  alone  teaches  us  how  to  make  a  right  use  of 
earthly  things. 

"  He  is  not  a  Christian,  but  a  Turk,  and  an  enemy  of  Christ, 
who  does  not  desire  afflictions."  "  Our  theologians  and  popes 
are  in  fact  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ  .  .  .  for  no  one  hates 
pain  and  trouble  more  than  the  popes  and  the  lawyers  [i.e.  those 
who  insist  upon  laws  and  observances].  No  one  is  more  greedy 
than  they  for  riches,  comfort,  idleness,  honour  and  pomp." 
"  They  honour  the  relics  of  the  Holy  Cross  and  yet  abhor  and 
fly  from  what  they  dislike."  "  We  consider  Christ  our  helper 

Denifle  remarks  (Denifle,  I1,  p.  484),  "  rests  merely  on  his  misconcep- 
tion of  Tauler."  He  points  out  that,  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans, 
owing  to  his  false  idea  of  self-love  he  went  so  far  as  to  "  explain  the 
command  '  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself  '  in  quite  a  different  sense 
from  that  hitherto  taught  by  the  Church,  for  ourselves  we  may  only 
hate.  .  .  .  According  to  him,  this  command  means  :  hate  thyself  that 
thou  mayest  love  thy  neighbour  alone."  ("  Oblitus  tui,  solum  proximum 
diligas.") 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  59.  Ibid.,  p.  133.  3  Ibid.,  p.  139. 


236  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

and  our  support  in  time  of  trouble,  but  whoever  does  not  suffer 
gladly,  cheats  Him  of  these  titles  ;  to  such  a  one  God  even  is  no 
longer  the  Creator  because  he  will  not  return  to  the  nothingness 
from  which  God  created  all.  Whoever  will  not  suffer  God  in 
weakness,  foolishness  and  punishment,  for  him  God  is  not  power- 
ful, not  wise,  not  merciful."1  "The  cross  puts  to  death  every- 
thing that  is  in  us.  Nature,  it  is  true,  desires  to  make  itself  and 
everything  alive,  but  God  in  His  love  takes  care,  by  the  infliction 
of  crosses  and  suffering,  that  even  spiritual  gifts  shall  not  taste 
too  sweet  to  the  righteous  ;  he  must  not  throw  himself  upon 
them  in  a  natural,  godless  impetuosity  in  order  to  enjoy  them, 
even  though  they  be  attractive  and  tempt  him  to  savour  them 
...  he  may  not  even  love  God  on  account  of  His  grace  and  His 
gifts,  but  only  for  His  own  sake,  otherwise  this  would  be  a 
forbidden  [!]  indulgence  in  the  grace  received,  and  he  would 
insult  the  Father  even  more  than  he  did  before  [i.e.  when  as  yet 
unrighteous  !].  In  the  Commentary  on  Romans  Luther  refuses  to 
recognise  any  love  save  that  which  springs  from  the  most  perfect 
motive.  He  stigmatises  the  love  which  arises  from  the  joy  in 
the  benefits  bestowed  by  a  gracious  God, — and  which  the  orthodox 
mystics  allowed, — as  presumption,  and  as  an  enjoyment  of  the 
creature  rather  than  of  the  Creator,  and  goes  so  far  as  to  say 
that  if  a  man  were  to  remain  in  this  love  "  he  would  be  lost 
eternally."2 

To  these  assertions  we  may  add  the  following  theses,  defended 
under  Luther's  auspices  in  1518,  which  explain  the  new  "  theologia 
crucis."  "  Whoever  is  not  destroyed  ('  destructus  ')  and  brought 
back  by  the  cross  and  suffering  to  the  state  of  nothingness, 
attributes  to  himself  works  and  wisdom,  but  not  to  his  God, 
and  so  he  abuses  and  dishonours  the  gifts  of  God.  But  whoever 
is  annihilated  by  suffering  ('  exinanitus  ')  ceases  to  do  anything, 
knowing  that  God  is  working  in  him  and  doing  all.  Therefore, 
whether  he  himself  does  anything  or  not,  he  remains  the  same, 
and  neither  vaunts  himself  for  doing  something  nor  is  ashamed 
of  doing  nothing,  because  God  works  in  him.  For  himself,  this 
he  knows,  it  is  enough  that  he  should  suffer  and  be  destroyed  by 
the  cross,  so  that  he  may  advance  more  and  more  towards 
annihilation.  This  is  what  Christ  teaches  in  John  iii.  3  :  '  Ye 
must  be  born  again.'  If  we  are  to  be  born  again,  we  must  first 
die  and  be  raised  with  the  Son  of  God  [on  the  cross]  ;  I  say  die, 
i.e.  taste  death  as  though  it  were  present."3  "  We  may  not  fly 
from  human  wisdom  and  the  law,  but  whoever  is  without  the 
theology  of  the  cross  is  making  the  worst  use  of  the  best  things. 
The  true  theologian  is  not  he  who  understands  the  '  invisible 
things  of  God  by  the  things  that  are  made,'  but  he  who  by 
suffering  and  the  cross  recognises  in  God  the  visible  and  the 
obscure."4 

1  "Schol.Rom.,"p.  133  f.     *  Ibid.,  p.  137.  Cp.  above,  p.  234,  n.  4  end. 

3  Heidelberg  Disputation,  on  thesis  24.      "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1, 
p.  363.    "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  401. 

4  Ibid.,  theses  19,  20. 


THE   NIGHT   OF   THE   SOUL        237 

The  Night  of  the  Soul  and  Resignation  to  Hell 

The  better  to  fight  against  selfishness  Tauler  had  proposed 
that  everyone  should  look  upon  himself  and  his  own  works 
as  evil,  imitating  a  certain  holy  brother  who  used  to  say : 
"  Know  that  I  am  the  basest  of  sinners."1  In  this  innocent 
recommendation  nothing  is  implied  of  the  complete  corrup- 
tion of  nature,  of  a  desire  for  hell,  or  of  resignation  to  eternal 
separation  from  God.  It  was  only  as  an  exercise  in  humility 
and  penitent  love  that  Tauler  and  the  other  mystics  wished 
the  devout  man  to  cultivate  the  habit  of  looking  on  himself 
as  absolutely  unworthy  of  heaven  and  as  better  fitted  for  a 
place  in  hell.  He  is  urged  to  descend  in  spirit  to  the 
place  of  torment  and  acknowledge,  against  his  egotism  and 
arrogance,  that,  on  account  of  his  sins,  he  has  deserved  a 
place  there  among  the  damned,  and  not  in  the  happy 
vicinity  of  God. 

They  also  depict  in  gloomy,  mystical  colours  the  condition 
of  the  unhappy  soul  who,  by  the  consent  of  God  and  in  order 
to  try  it,  sees  itself  deprived  of  all  comfort,  and,  as  it  were, 
torn  away  from  its  highest  good  and  relegated  to  hell. 
Such  pains,  they  teach,  are  intended  as  a  way  of  purgation 
for  the  soul,  which,  after  such  a  night,  can  raise  itself  again 
with  all  the  more  confidence  and  love  to  God,  who  has,  so 
far,  preserved  it  from  so  great  a  misfortune. 

The  doctrine  of  the  dark,  mystical  night  appealed  very 
strongly  to  Luther's  mind.  In  his  theology  he  is  fond  of 
picturing  the  soul  as  utterly  sinful  and  deserving  of  hell, 
meaning  by  this  something  very  different  from  what 
orthodox  mystics  taught.  He  also  suffered  greatly  at  times 
from  inward  commotion  and  darkening  of  the  soul,  due  to 
fears  regarding  predestination,  to  a  troubled  conscience  or 
to  morbid  depression,  of  which  the  cause  was  perhaps 
bodily  rather  than  mental.  These,  however,  bore  no  re- 
semblance to  the  pains- — "  mystical  exercises  "  as  they  have 
been  called  by  Protestants — of  which  the  mystics  speak. 
In  his  "  temptations  in  the  monastery  "  he  did  not  ex- 
perience what  Tauler  and  the  "  Theologia  Deutsch " 
narrate  of  the  consuming  inner  fire  of  Purgatory.  Luther, 
however,  erroneously  applied  their  descriptions  to  his  own 

1  Cp.  Braun,  "  Concupiscenz,"  p.  285. 


238  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

condition.1  Thus  his  idea  of  the  night  of  the  soul  is  quite 
different  from  that  of  the  mystics,  though  he  describes  it 
in  almost  the  same  words,  and,  thanks  to  his  imagination 
and  eloquence,  possibly  in  even  more  striking  colours. 

Several  times  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans  he  repre- 
sents resignation  to,  indeed  even  an  actual  desire  for, 
damnation' — should  that  be  the  will  of  God' — as  something 
grand  and  sublime.  Thereby  he  thinks  he  is  teaching  the 
highest  degree  of  resignation  to  God's  inscrutable  will ; 
thereby  the  highest  step  on  the  ladder  of  self-abnegation  has 
been  attained.  In  reality  it  is  an  ideal  of  a  frightful  char- 
acter, far  worse  even  than  a  return  to  nothingness.  He  lets 
us  see  here,  as  he  does  so  often  in  other  matters,  how  greatly 
his  turbulent  spirit  inclined  to  extremes.2 

"  If  men  willed  what  God  wills,"  he  writes,  "  even  though  He 
should  will  to  damn  and  reject  them,  they  would  see  no  evil  in 
that  [in  the  predestination  to  hell  which  he  teaches]  ;  for,  as 
they  will  what  God  wills,  they  have,  owing  to  their  resignation, 
the  will  of  God  in  them."  Does  he  mean  by  this  that  they 
should  resign  themselves  to  hating  God  for  all  eternity  ?  Luther 
does  not  seem  to  notice  that  hatred  of  God  is  an  essential  part 
of  the  condition  of  those  who  are  damned  ("  damnari  et  reprobari 
ad  infernum  ").  Has  he  perhaps  come  to  conceive  of  a  hatred 
of  God  proceeding  from  love  ?  He  seems  almost  to  credit  those 
who  think  of  hell,  with  a  resolve  to  bear  everything,  even  hatred 
of  God,  with  loving  submission  to  the  will  of  Him  Who  by  His 
predestination  has  willed  it. 

He  even  dares  to  say  to  those  who  are  affrighted  by  pre- 
destination to  hell,  that  resignation  to  eternal  punishment  is, 
for  the  truly  wise,  a  source  of  "  ineffable  joy "  ("  ineffabili 
iucunditate  in  ista  materia  delectantur");3  for  the  perfect  this  is 
"  the  best  purgation  from  their  own  will,"  i.e.  the  way  of  the 
greatest  bitterness,  "  because  under  charity  the  cross  and  suffering 
is  always  understood."  But  all,  he  says,  even  the  half-imperfect, 

1  Cp.  Luther's  appeal  to  Tauler  :  "  De  ista  palientia  Dei  et  sufferentia 
vide  Taulerum,"  etc.  (see  above,  p.  232).    Denifle,  I1,  p.  484,  remarks: 
"  The    above    statements    are    in   part   founded   on   Tauler,    whom 
Luther  misunderstood  throughout.     The  two  stood  on  different  ground 
and  had  a  different  starting-point  and  a  different  goal." 

2  In  allusion  to  such  doctrines,  Denifle  speaks     (Denifle,  I1,  p.  486) 
of  "  Luther's  worse  than  morbid,  yea,  terrible  theology."    The  passages 
in  Tauler  which  have  been  alleged  to  show  that  his  teaching  was 
similar  to  that  of  Luther  on  this  point,  have  quite  a  different  sense. 
Tauler  did  not  recognise  the  undeserved  reprobation  which  Luther 
presupposes  ;  he  makes  the  horrible  misfortune  of  eternal  reprobation, 
which  culminates  in  hatred  of  God,  a  result  of  voluntary  separation 
from  Him  in  this  life. 

8  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  pp.  213,  223. 


READINESS    FOR   HELL  239 

see  that  here  we  have  a  splendid  remedy  for  destroying  "  the 
presumptuous  building  upon  merit ;  let  everyone  rejoice  in 
his  fear  and  thank  God,"1  the  more  so  that  those  who  are  so 
much  afraid  will  certainly  not  go  to  hell  ;  "as  they  make  them- 
selves entirely  conformable  to  the  will  of  God  it  is  impossible 
that  they  should  be  delivered  over  to  eternal  punishment,  as  he 
who  resigns  himself  entirely  to  God's  holy  Will  cannot  remain 
separated  from  Him."2 

This  doctrine  of  a  wholesome  fear  of  hell,  of  a  saving,  heroic 
abandonment  to  God,  and  of  an  exalted  and  pure  love  to  be 
exercised  by  all  as  a  "  remedy  "  against  damnation,  invalidates 
Luther's  doctrine  of  absolute  and  undeserved  predestination  to 
hell ;  salvation  is  again  made  to  depend  upon  both  God  and 
man,  whose  co-operation  becomes  necessary  ;  it  is  only  because 
"  man  will  not  will  what  God  wills  "  that  he  is  damned.  Yet, 
according  to  Luther,  the  saving  fear  and  resignation  is  only 
possible  to  the  elect,  and  these  must  in  the  end  be  in  doubt  as  to 
whether  they  are  pleasing  to  God,  just  as  they  must  be  uncertain 
regarding  all  their  actions. 

In  confirmation  of  his  theory  of  readiness  for  hell  Luther  even 
refers  to  St.  Paul,  who  says  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  that  he 
had  offered  himself  to  the  everlasting  pains  of  hell  for  the  salva- 
tion of  the  Jews  ;  that,  in  order  to  save  them,  he  had  been  ready 
to  be  "  an  anathema  from  Christ."3  But  the  example  does  not 
apply.  According  to  a  more  correct  explanation,  the  Apostle, 
who  was  always  in  spiritual  communion  with  Christ,  speaks  only 
of  an  outward  separation.4  Luther  himself  says  in  this  connec- 
tion :  Paul  did  not  desire  to  hate  Christ,  but  was  ready  to  be 
separated  from  Him  ;  in  this  he  displayed  the  "  most  sublime 
degree  of  charity,  a  truly  apostolic  love  "  ;  "  this  seems,  of 
course,  incomprehensible  and  foolish  to  those  who  think  them- 
selves holy  and  love  God  with  the  '  amor  concupiscentice,'  i.e.  on 
account  of  their  salvation  and  for  the  sake  of  eternal  rest,  or  in 
order  to  escape  from  hell,  in  other  words,  not  for  God's  sake  but 
their  own.  .  .  .  What  they  really  desire  is  salvation  according 
to  their  own  fancy,  instead  of  desiring  their  own  nothingness 
both  here  and  hereafter  ('  suum  nihil  optare '),  and  only  the  will 
and  glory  of  God,"  whereas  "  all  perfect  saints,  out  of  their 
overflowing  affection,  are  ready  to  accept  everything,  even  hell 
itself.  By  reason  of  this  readiness,  it  is  true,  they  at  once  escape 
all  punishment." 

According  to  Luther,  even  Christ  offered  Himself  for  hell 
whole  and  entire.  Luther  does  not  make  the  slightest  distinction 
in  the  agony  in  the  Garden  between  mere  exterior  and  real 
interior  separation  from  God.  Christ  was  ever  united  hypo- 
statically  with  God,  and  His  human  nature  never  ceased  to  enjoy 
the  vision  of  God.  Luther,  however,  merely  says  :  "  He  found 
Himself  in  a  state  of  condemnation  and  abandonment  which  was 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  214.  2  Ibid.,  p.  218.  3  Ibid.,  p.  217  f. 

4  On  the  history  of  the  explanation  of  this  passage  see  Comely, 
"  Commentar.  in  Ep.  ad  Romanes,"  pp.  471-4. 


240  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

greater  than  that  of  all  the  saints.  His  sufferings  were  not  easy 
to  Him,  as  some  have  imagined,  because  He  actually  and  in 
truth  offered  Himself  to  the  eternal  Father  to  be  consigned  to 
eternal  damnation  for  us  ('  quod  realiter  et  vere  se  in  ceternam 
damnationem  obtulit  Deo  patri  pro  nobis  ').  His  human  nature 
did  not  behave  differently  from  that  of  a  man  who  is  to  be 
condemned  eternally  to  hell.  On  account  of  this  love  of  God, 
God  at  once  raised  Him  from  death  and  hell,  and  so  He  over- 
came hell  ('  eum  suscitavit  a  morte  et  inferno  et  sic  momordit 
infernum  '  ;  cp.  Osee  xiii.  14).  All  His  saints  must  follow  this 
example,  some  more,  some  less  ;  and  according  to  the  degree 
of  their  perfection  in  love  they  find  this  harder  or  easier.  But 
Christ  bore  the  most  severe  form  of  it  ('  durissime  hoc  fecit '), 
and  for  this  reason  He  laments  in  many  passages  (in  the  Messianic 
Psalms)  the  pains  of  hell."1 


In  the  light  of  passages  such  as  these  we  can  understand 
to  some  extent  the  lurid,  fanciful,  mystic  description  which 
he  gives  early  in  1518,  clearly  on  the  strength  of  his  own 
states  of  mind.  He  tells  how  a  man  fancies  himself  at 
certain  moments  plunged  into  hell,  and  feels  his  breast 
pierced  by  all  the  pangs  of  everlasting  despair,  because  he 
apprehends  God's  "  frightful  ire  "  and  the  impossibility  of 
ever  being  delivered.  This  grotesque  picture  of  a  soul, 
with  which  we  shall  deal  more  fully  later,  although  it  is 
partly  taken  almost  word  for  word  from  the  earlier  de- 
scriptions of  the  mystics,  reveals  its  morbid  character  more 
especially  by  the  fact,  that  the  hope,  which,  in  the  case  of 
the  devout,  remains  in  the  depths  of  the  soul  even  throughout 
the  most  severe  interior  trials,  seems  entirely  absent.  God 
is  seen  as  He  appeared  to  Luther,  i.e.  as  an  inexorable, 
arbitrary  punisher  of  His  creature.2 

Luther's  mysticism  is  veritably  a  mysticism  of  despair 
and  the  "  humilitas,"  with  its  love  ready  even  for  hell, 
which  he  belauds  as  the  anchor  of  safety,  is  a  forced  ex- 
pedient really  excluded  by  his  system,  and  which  he  himself 
discarded  as  soon  as  he  was  able  to  replace  it  by  the  (God- 
given)  fides,  in  the  shape  of  faith  in  personal  justification 
and  salvation. 


1  "  Schol.  Rom.,  p.  218  f. 

2  The  frequently  quoted  description  is  to  be  found  in  "  Werke," 
Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  557  f. 


10.  The  Commentary  on  Romans  as  a  Work  of  Religion 
and  Learning 

The  Commentary  purports  to  be  as  much  a  religious  as  a 
learned  work.  Its  religious  value  can  be  shortly  summed  up 
from  the  above. 

The  author  is  as  much  occupied  in  putting  forth  religious 
ideas  which  appeal  to  him  as  in  expounding  exegetically 
St.  Paul's  Epistle,  and  these  ideas  he  supports  on  the  text 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  or  on  other  passages  from  Holy 
Scripture  which  he  incessantly  adduces.  His  intention  also 
was  to  make  the  considerations  of  practical  use  from  the 
religious  point  of  view  to  his  hearers,  who  were  probably 
most  of  them  Augustinians.  He  wished  to  give  them  a 
practical  introduction  to  the  doctrines  of  St.  Paul,  as  he 
understood  them,  and  at  the  same  time  to  his  own  mysticism. 

We  must,  if  we  wish  to  do  justice  to  the  Commentary  on 
Romans,  admit  without  reserve  that  it  does  not  show  us 
the  picture  of  a  man  who  is  morally  bankrupt.  The  author 
does  not  make  the  impression  of  one  bent  on  sensuality, 
and  seeking  the  means  of  gratifying  it.  The  work,  on  the 
contrary,  breathes  a  spiritual  tendency,  even  to  the  point 
of  excess,  though  not,  indeed,  without  a  strong  admixture 
of  the  earthly  element. 

The  author  is,  however,  far  from  having  arrived  at  any 
clear  religious  views  ;  after  wrestling  with  the  secrets 
of  the  Pauline  Epistle  with  feeling  and  eloquence,  he  is 
unable  even  at  the  end  to  extricate  himself  from  a  condition 
of  spiritual  restlessness.  The  work  testifies  to  an  enduring 
state  of  religious  ferment. 

The  vivacity  and  fertility  of  thought  which  the  author 
displays  is  noteworthy  ;  the  personal  colouring  in  which  he 
depicts  his  religious  ideas,  and,  frequently,  too,  rabidly 
defends  them  against  scholars  and  religious  who  think 
differently,  is  unique,  and  of  priceless  value  to  the  bio- 
grapher. Such  a  strong  personal  tone  is  not,  it  is  true,  quite 
in  place  in  a  learned  work. 

The  religious  "  experience,"  so  often  supposed  to  stand 
in  the  forefront  of  his  development,  is  not  to  be  found  there. 

If  the  so-called  spiritual  "  experience  "  had  actually  taken 
place  Luther  would  certainly  have  alluded  to  it,  for  he  has 
much  to  say  of  his  own  state  and  observations.  Why  does 

i.— R 


242  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

he  say  nothing  here  of  the  experiences  he  afterwards  relates 
in  such  detail  ?  Of  the  excessive,  almost  suicidal,  monastic 
practices  to  which,  as  a  Catholic-minded  monk,  he  sur- 
rendered himself,  seeking  God's  grace,  until  through  Divine 
intervention  he  recognised  that  the  path  of  works  and 
strictness  of  life,  in  fact  the  Catholic  road  generally,  was 
incapable  of  leading  one  to  peace  with  God  here  below  and 
to  union  with  God  in  eternity  ?  There  is  nothing  here  of 
that  sudden  leap  from  weary,  self-righteous  seeking  after 
God— ostensibly  a  delusion  cherished  by  all  Catholics—to 
the  joyous  consciousness  of  a  gracious  God,  based  on  the 
recognition  of  justification.  Luther,  on  the  other  hand, 
gives  a  seemingly  accurate  description  of  his  own  spiritual 
development,  though  without  mentioning  himself,  at  the 
end  of  his  exposition  of  Romans  iii.,  a  passage  to  which  we 
shall  return  later. 

The  author  frequently  allows  his  fancied  religious  interests 
to  spoil  his  exegesis. 

Often  enough  he  does  not  even  make  an  attempt  to  follow 
up  the  thoughts  of  the  Apostle  and  arrive  at  their  sense. 
His  character  is  too  impatient  of  restraint  and  too  pre- 
disposed to  rhetoric.  Thus  he  descends  to  the  religious  and 
political  questions  then  being  debated  at  Wittenberg  and 
says  by  way  of  excuse  :  "I  will  explain  the  meaning  of  the 
Apostle  to  you  in  its  practical  sense,  in  order  that  you  may 
understand  the  matter  better  by  the  help  of  some  compari- 
sons."1 These  words  occur  in  the  passage  in  which  he 
admonishes  Duke  George  of  Saxony  regarding  his  quarrels 
with  Edgard,  Count  of  East  Frisia  (1514-15),  telling  him 
he  ought  to  have  recognised  the  Will  of  God  in  the  Count's 
"  malicious  revolt  "  and  have  patiently  suffered  himself  to 
be  vanquished  by  his  foe- — as  though  it  were  the  duty  of 
princes  to  become  mystics  like  himself.2 

If  we  now  examine  the  actual  value  of  the  Commentary, 
we  find  much  that  is  excellent  and  calculated  to  elucidate 
the  Pauline  text. 

It  is  especially  praiseworthy  in  Luther  that  he  should 
have  made  the  Greek  text  edited  by  Erasmus  the  basis  of 
his  work  as  soon  as  it  was  published  during  the  course  of  his 
lectures.  He  also  makes  frequent,  diligent  and  intelligent 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  272.    Cp.  ibid.,  p.  301. 
*  Cp.  above,  p.  228. 


OUTSIDE   INFLUENCES  243 

use  of  the  "  exegetical  ability "  of  Nicholas  of  Lyra,1 
following  him  for  the  text  as  well  as  for  the  interpretation 
and  division  of  the  subject ;  this  was  the  author  whose 
assistance  he  had  formerly  declined  with  far  too  much 
contempt.  Other  authorities  whom  he  also  consults  are 
Paul  of  Burgos,  Peter  Lombard,  for  his  explanations  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and,  for  the  division  of  the  matter, 
particularly  the  Schemata  of  Faber  Stapulensis.  His  own 
linguistic  training  and  his  knowledge  of  ancient  literature 
were  of  great  service  to  him,  as  also  was  his  natural  quickness 
of  judgment  combined  with  sagacity.  He  frequently  quotes 
passages  from  St.  Augustine,  and  through  him,  i.e.  at  second- 
hand, from  Cyprian  and  Chrysostom  ;  in  his  interpretations 
the  mediaeval  authorities  of  whom  he  makes  most  use  are 
the  Master  of  the  Sentences  and  St.  Bernard.2  The  way 
in  which  Aristotle  and  the  Scholastics  are  handled  is  already 
plain  from  what  we  have  said.  Reminiscences  of  the  works 
of  his  own  professors,  Paltz,  Trutfetter  and  Usingen,  are 
merely  general,  and  he  freely  differs  from  them.  As  an 
Occamist  he  feels  himself  in  contradiction  to  the  Thomists 
and  to  some  extent  also  to  the  Scotists  ;  in  addition  to 
Occam,  d'Ailly,  Gerson  and  Biel  have  a  great  influence  on 
him,  even  in  his  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  Tauler,  who 
has  so  frequently  been  mentioned,  also  left  deep  traces  of 
his  influence  not  only  in  the  matter  of  the  Commentary,  but 
also  in  the  language,  which  is  often  obscure,  rich  in  imagery 
and  full  of  feeling,  while  here  and  there  we  seem  to  find 
reminiscences  of  the  "  Theologia  Deutsch  "  which  Luther 
was  to  publish  at  the  close  of  his  lectures.  The  latter  was, 
"  to  his  thinking,  the  most  exact  expression  of  the  great 
thoughts  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans."3 

From  a  learned  point  of  view  his  exegesis  would  probably 
have  been  different  and  far  more  reliable  had  he  consulted 
the  famous  Commentary  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  not  merely  for  the  division  of  his 
subject,  but  also  for  the  matter.  This  Commentary  held 
the  first  place,  as  regards  clearness  and  depth  of  thought, 
among  previous  expositions,  yet  not  once  does  Luther  quote 
it,  and,  probably,  he  had  never  opened  the  work  for  the 

1  J.  Ficker  in  the  Preface  of  his  edition  of  the  Commentary,  p.  liv. 

2  For  the  sources  used  by  Luther,  see  Ficker,  pp.  liii.-lxii. 

3  Thus  Ficker,  p.  Ixii. 


244  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

purpose  of  study.  "  It  is  most  remarkable,"  Wilhelm 
Braun  says,  speaking  of  Luther's  Commentary  and  of  his 
whole  development,  "  that  Luther  never  came  to  understand 
Thomas  of  Aquin.  We  meet  with  some  disparaging  remarks 
[elsewhere  than  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans] ;  he  is 
doubtful  as  to  whether  St.  Thomas  was  really  saved,  because 
he  wrote  some  heretical  stuff  and  brought  Aristotle,  the 
corrupter  of  pious  doctrine,  into  prominence  in  the  Church  ; 
but  he  never  understood  him  from  the  theological  point 
of  view."1  We  might  well  go  further  and  say,  that  he 
did  not  even  do  what  must  certainly  precede  any  "under- 
standing"-— study  his  writings  with  the  intention  of  care- 
fully examining  them.2 

How  greatly  does  Luther  in  his  method,  his  manner  of 
delivery  and  his  spirit  differ  from  St.  Thomas,  from  the 
latter's  quiet  precision  and  trustworthiness  in  following 
the  great  traditions  of  learning  and  theology.  Luther  so 
often  speaks  without  due  thought,  so  often  in  his  impetuosity 
sees  but  one  side  of  things,  he  contradicts  himself  without 
remarking  it,  falls  into  grotesque  exaggeration,  and,  in  many 
passages,  is  not  merely  impulsive  in  his  manner  of  speech, 
but  even  destructive.  The  rashness  with  which  he  lays 
hands  on  the  generally  accepted  teaching  of  the  best  tried 
minds,  his  assumption  of  supremacy  in  the  intellectual 
domain,  the  boundless  self-confidence  which  peeps  out  of 
so  many  of  his  assertions,  gave  cause  for  fearing  the  worst 
from  this  professor,  to  whose  words  the  University  was  even 
then  attentive. 

He  knew  well  how  to  hold  his  listeners  by  the  versatility 
of  his  spirit  and  his  ability  to  handle  words.  His  language 
comprises,  now  weighty  sentences,  now  popular  and  taking 
comparisons.  He  speaks,  when  he  is  so  inclined,  in  the 
popular  and  forcible  style  he  employs  at  a  later  date  ;  he 
borrows  from  the  lips  of  the  populace  sayings  of  unexampled 
coarseness  with  which  he  spices  his  harangues,  more  especially 

1  "  Die  Bedeutung  der  Concupiscenz  in  Luthers  Leben  und  Lehre," 
p.  176. 

2  See  above,  p.  129.    W.  Friedensburg,   "  Fortschritte  in  Kenntnis 
der  Reformationsgesch  "   ("  Schriften  des  Vereins  fur  Reformations- 
gesch.,"  No.  100,  1910,  pp.  1-59),  p.  17:    "It  appears  [from  Denifle's 
work]  that  Luther  was  little  acquainted  with  the  Scholastics  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  especially  with  Thomas  of  Aquin — which  was  equally 
the  case  with  nearly  all  his  contemporaries  [?]— and  that  he  drew  his 
information  from  secondary  sources,"  etc. 


COARSENESS   AND   PARADOX      245 

with  a  view  to  emphasising  his  attitude  to  his  opponents. 
We  may  be  permitted  to  quote  one  such  passage  in  which 
he  is  speaking  against  those  who  hold  themselves  to  be 
pure  :  "I  look  on  them  as  the  biggest  fools,  who  want  to 
forget  how  deeply  they  stick  in  the  mire.  .  .  .  Did  you 
never  ...  in  your  mother's  lap,  and  was  not  the  smell 
evil  ?  Is  your  perfume  always  so  sweet  ?  Is  there  nothing 
about  your  whole  person  which  has  an  unpleasant  odour  ? 
If  you  are  so  clean,  I  am  surprised  that  the  apothecaries 
have  not  long  ago  got  hold  of  you  to  use  you  in  making 
their  balsams,  for  surely  you  must  reek  of  balm.  Yet  had 
your  mother  left  you  as  you  are  and  were,  you  would  have 
perished  in  your  own  filth."1 

Immediately  after  this  he  proceeds  with  a  more  pleasing 
thought :  "  Truly  to  please  oneself,  one  must  be  utterly 
displeased  with  self.  No  one  can  please  himself  and  others 
at  the  same  time." 

He  is  fond  of  startling  antitheses  and  frequently  loses 
himself  in  paradoxes.  "  God  has  concealed  righteousness 
under  sin,  goodness  under  severity,  mercy  under  anger."2 
"  He  who  does  not  think  he  is  righteous,  is  for  that  very 
reason  righteous  before  God."  "  To  be  sinners  does  not 
harm  us,  if  we  only  strive  earnestly  for  justification."3 

It  may  serve  to  give  a  better  idea  of  the  exegetical  value 
of  the  whole  work,  and  thereby  increase  our  knowledge  of 
its  author,  if  we  consider  some  of  the  other  peculiarities 
which  permeate  it. 

Luther  frequently  engages  with  great  zest  in  philosophical 
argument  and  has  skirmishes  in  dialectics  with  his  adver- 

1  "  Schol.   Rom.,"  p.  335.     The  reproach  brought  against  these 
opponents  of  backbiting  forms  an  exact  parallel  to  Luther's  address, 
"  Contra  sanctulos,"  mentioned  above.    Compare  the  allusions,  p.  334, 
"  Tcediosi  sunt   et   nolunt  esse  in  communione   aliorum  ;   sic  hceretici, 
sic  multi  superbi."     And  before  :    "  Hi  insulsi  homines  contra  totum 
ordinem  [he  is  referring  to  their  state  or  position  in  life]  insurgunt  ac 
velut  ipsi  sint  mundi,  ut  nullibi  sordeant,  cum  tamen  ante  et  retro  et  intua 
non  nisi  suum  et  porcorum  sint  forum  et  officina."    The  anecdote  which 
he  relates  (p.  243  f.)  of  the  man  who  resolved  "  amore  Dei  vette  nunquam 
mingere,"  with  which  Luther  laughs  to  scorn  the  desire  of  some  to 
perform  extraordinary  works  for  God's  sake,  is  quite  in  keeping  with 
this  language". 

2  Ibid.,  p.  208. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  101.     This  kind  of  language  which  he  indulges  in  at  a 
later   date   agrees   with   his   character.      "  His   personality   presents 
hundreds  of  enigmas"  ;   says  A.  Hausrath  in  his  biography  of  Luther, 
1,  p.  vii.,   "  of  all  great  men  Luther  was  the  most  paradoxical. 


246  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

saries,  after  the  custom  of  the  school  of  Occam.  In  such 
cases  he  often  becomes  scarcely  intelligible  owing  to  his 
utter  neglect  of  the  rules  of  logic.  The  answer  he  gives  to 
the  proofs  alleged  by  "  modern  philosophers  "  for  the  possi- 
bility of  a  natural  love  of  God  is  very  characteristic.  They 
had  urged :  The  Avill  is  able  to  grasp  all  that  reason  proposes 
to  it  as  right  and  necessary  ;  but  reason  proposes  that  we 
must  love  God,  the  cause  of  all  things,  and  the  Highest  Good 
above  all.  Against  this  Luther  philosophises  as  folloAvs  : 
"  That  is  decidedly  a  bad  conclusion.  The  conclusion 
should  be :  If  the  will  is  able  to  will  everything  that  reason 
prescribes  shall  be  willed  and  performed,  then  the  will  may 
will  that  God  is  to  be  loved  above  all,  as  reason  says.  But 
it  does  not  follow  that  the  will  can  love  God  above  all,  but 
merely  that  it  can  feebly  will  that  this  be  done,  i.e.  the  will 
has  just  that  tiny  little  bit  of  will  (' voluntatulam  voluntalis 
habere')\\hich  reason  orders  it  to  have."  To  this  Luther  adds : 
"  Were  that  proof  correct,  then  the  common  teaching  would 
be  erroneous  that  the  law  [of  God  in  Revelation]  has  been 
given  in  order  to  humble  the  proud  who  presumptuously 
build  on  their  own  powers."  And  immediately,  with 
supposedly  scriptural  proofs,  he  proceeds  to  show  that  no 
power  for  doing  what  is  good  can  be  ascribed  to  the  will.1 

In  what  he  says  of  the  position  of  philosophy  to  saving 
grace- — a  point  we  mentioned  above- — we  have  another 
example  of  his  faulty  method. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  old  Scholastics,  far  from  drawing 
their  profound  teaching  concerning  sanctifying  grace  from 
the  "  mouldy  "  stores  of  Aristotle,  advocated,  with  regard 
to  justification,  regeneration  and  bestowal  of  sanctifying 
grace  ("  gratia  sanctificans  ")  by  the  infusion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  simply  the  views  contained  in  Holy  Scripture  and 
in  the  Fathers  ;  but,  in  order  to  make  her  teaching  more 
comprehensible  and  to  insure  it  against  aberrations,  the 
Church  clothed  it  as  far  as  necessary  in  the  language  of  the 
generally  accepted  philosophy.  .The  element  which  Scholas- 
ticism therewith  borrowed  from  Aristotle — or  to  be  accurate 
not  from  him  only,  but,  through  the  Fathers,  from  ancient 
philosophy  generally- — was  of  service  for  the  comprehension 
of  revealed  truth.  Luther,  however,  was  opposed  to  any- 
thing which  tended  to  greater  definition  because  he  was 
1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  187.  Cp.  p.  321. 


CATHOLIC  DOCTRINE   OF  GRACE    247 

more  successful  in  expressing  his  diverging  opinions  in  vague 
and  misapprehended  biblical  language  than  in  the  stricter 
and  more  exact  language  of  the  philosophical  schools. 

The  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  has  given  Scholasticism 
its  due.  In  the  definitions  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  the 
points  of  faith  which  had  been  called  into  question,  the 
Church  to  a  certain  degree  made  her  own  the  old  traditional 
expressions  of  the  schools  on  the  doctrine  of  grace,  teaching, 
for  instance,  that  the  "  only  formal  cause  of  our  righteous- 
ness lies  in  the  righteousness  of  God,  not  in  that  by  which 
He  Himself  is  just,  but  that  by  which  He  makes  us  just." 
She  declared  that,  with  justifying  grace,  the  "love  of  God 
becomes  inherent  in  us,"  and  that  with  this  grace  man 
"  receives  the  infusion  ('  infusa  accipit ')  of  faith,  hope  and 
charity  "  ;  she  also  speaks  of  the  various  causes  of  justifica- 
tion, of  the  final,  efficient,  meritorious,  instrumental  and 
formal  cause.1  All  these  learned  terms  were  admirably 
fitted  to  express  the  ancient  views  vouched  for  by  the 
Bible  or  tradition,  and  the  same  may  be  said,  for  in- 
stance, of  the  formula  sanctioned  by  the  Council  of  Trent, 
that  "  by  the  sacraments  grace  is  bestowed  '  ex  opere 
operato,'  "  and  that  the  sacraments  of  Baptism,  Confirma- 
tion and  Order  impart  "  a  '  character,'  i.e.  a  spiritual  and 
ineradicable  mark  on  account  of  which  they  cannot  be 
repeated."2  When  the  Church  expresses  herself  in  such 
terms  with  regard  to  sanctifying  grace,  she  implies  thereby 
no  more  than  what  is  stated  in  the  various  biblical  excerpts 
quoted  in  detail  by  the  Council  of  Trent  to  which  Luther 
had  paid  too  little  heed.  Her  teaching  is  that  man  is  signed 
and  anointed  with  the  spirit  of  promise  which  is  the  pledge 
of  our  inheritance  ;  that  he  is  renewed  through  the  Spirit, 
and  that  by  the  Spirit  the  love  of  God  is  poured  forth  in 
his  heart ;  that  he  becomes  a  living  member  of  Christ ; 
that  because  he  is  made  the  heir  and  child  of  God  he  has  a 
right  to  heaven  ;  that  he  is  born  again  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  a  new  life,  and  thus  is  translated  into  the  Kingdom  of  the 
Love  of  His  Son  where  he  has  redemption  and  forgiveness 
of  sins  ;  as  such  he  is  a  friend  and  companion  of  God  ;  yet 

1  Sess.  6,  c.  7.  Cp.  c.  16  :  "  Quce  enim,"  etc.  In  can.  11  of  this 
session  "  inherent  "  charity  is  again  mentioned,  and  in  can.  10  the 
righteousness  by  which  we  are  "formaliter  iusti."  Cp.  Luther's  bitter 
attack  on  the  expression  "  fides  formata  caritate  "  (see  above,  p.  209) 

*  Sess.  7,  can.  8,  9. 


248  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

he  must  go  on  from  virtue  to  virtue  and,  as  the  Apostle 
says,  be  renewed  from  day  to  day  by  constantly  mortifying 
the  members  of  his  flesh  and  offering  them  as  the  weapons 
of  righteousness  for  sanctification. 

In  his  Commentary  on  Romans  Luther  already  breaks 
away  from  tradition,  i.e.  from  the  whole  growth  of  the  past, 
even  on  matters  of  the  utmost  moment,  and  this  not  at  all 
to  the  advantage  of  theology  ;  not  merely  the  method  and 
mode  of  expression  does  he  oppose,  but  even  the  very 
substance  of  doctrine. 

Protestant  theology,  following  in  his  footsteps,  went 
further.  Many  of  its  representatives,  as  we  shall  see, 
honestly  expressed  their  serious  doubts  as  to  whether  the 
Bible  teaching  of  sanctification  by  grace — that  process 
which,  according  to  the  scriptural  descriptions  just  quoted, 
takes  place  in  the  very  innermost  being  of  man- — is  really 
expressed  correctly  by  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  imputa- 
tion of  a  purely  extraneous  righteousness.  But  even  to-day 
there  are  others  who  still  support  Luther's  views  in  a 
slightly  modified  form,  and  who  will  have  it  that  the 
scholastic  and  later  teaching  of  the  Church  is  a  doctrine  of 
mere  "  magic,"  as  though  she  made  of  saving  grace  a  magical 
power,  of  which  the  agency  is  baptism  or  absolution.  It 
is  true  that  the  process  of  sanctification  as  apprehended  by 
faith  is  to  a  large  extent  involved  in  impenetrable  mystery, 
but  in  Christianity  there  is  much  else  which  is  mysterious. 
It  is  perhaps  this  mysterious  element  which  gives  offence 
and  accounts  for  Catholic  doctrine  being  described  by  so 
opprobrious  a  word  as  "  magic."  Some  Protestants  of  the 
same  school  are  also  given  to  praising  Luther — in  terms 
which  are  also,'  though  in  another  sense,  mysterious  and 
obscure — for  having  from  the  very  outset  arrived  at  the 
great  idea  of  grace  peculiar  to  the  Reformed  theology,  viz. 
at  the  "  exaltation  of  religion  above  morality."  He  was 
the  first  to  ask  :  "  How  do  I  stand  with  regard  to  my  God  ?  " 
and  who  made  the  discovery,  of  which  his  Commentary  on 
Romans  is  a  forcible  proof,  that  it  is  "  man's  relation  to 
God  through  faith  which  creates  the  purer  atmosphere  in 
which  alone  it  is  possible  for  morality  to  thrive."  He 
arrived,  so  we  are  told,  at  an  apprehension  of  grace  as  "  a 
merciful  consideration  of  the  abiding  sinner,"  and  a  true 
"  consolation  of  conscience  "  ;  he  at  the  same  time  recog- 


INDWELLING   SIN  249 

nised  grace  as  an  "  educative  and  moulding  energy,"  which, 
as  such,  imparts  "  strength  for  sanctification."1 

To  return  to  the  exegetical  side  of  the  Commentary  on 
Romans,  the  confusion  in  which  the  ideas  are  presented 
lends  to  much  of  it  a  stamp  of  great  imperfection.  There  is 
a  general  lack  of  cautious,  intelligent  comprehension  of  the 
material,  which  sometimes  is  concerned  with  the  tenderest 
questions  of  faith,  sometimes  with  vital  points  of  morals. 
The  impartial  observer  sees  so  many  traces  of  passion, 
irritation,  storm  and  stress  that  he  begins  to  ask  himself 
whether  the  work  has  any  real  theological  value. 

The  passage,  Romans  vii.  17,  regarding  the  indwelling  of  sin  in 
man  ("  habitat  in  me  peccatum  ")  Luther,  in  the  interests  of  his 
system,  makes  use  of  for  an  attack  upon  the  Scholastics  ("  nostri 
theologi  ").  He  attributes  to  them  an  interpretation  of  the  passage 
which  was  certainly  not  theirs,  and,  from  his  own  interpretation, 
draws  strange  and  quite  unfounded  inferences.  According  to 
the  interpretation  commonly  admitted  by  almost  all  exegetists, 
whether  Catholic  or  Protestant,  St.  Paul  is  here  speaking  of  the 
unregenerate  man  in  whom  sin  dwells,  preventing  him  from 
fulfilling  the  law.  Luther,  on  the  contrary,  asserts  that  the 
Apostle  is  alluding  to  himself  and  to  the  regenerate  generally, 
and  he  quotes  from  the  context  no  less  than  twelve  proofs  that 
this  is  the  correct  interpretation.2  Scholastics  either  referred 
the  passage,  like  St.  Augustine,  to  the  righteous — in  whom  on 
account  of  the  survival  of  the  "  fomes  peccati "  sin  in  some 
sense  dwells,  even  the  righteous  being  easily  led  away  by  the  same 
to  sin — or  they  left  the  question  open  and  allowed  the  verse  to 
refer  to  those  who  are  not  justified. 

Luther,  delighted  by  his  discovery  of  the  survival  of  original 
sin  in  man  after  baptism,  could  not  allow  the  opportunity  to 
slip  of  dealing  a  blow  at  the  older  theologians  :  "  Is  it  not  a  fact 
that  the  fallacious  metaphysics  of  Aristotle — the  philosophy 
which  is  built  up  on  human  tradition — has  blinded  our  theo- 
logians ?  They  fancy  that  sin  is  destroyed  in  Baptism  and  in 

1  "  Educative  "  grace  which  imparts  "  strength  "  is  probably  what 
we  call  actual  grace,  not  sanctifying  grace.    Luther  makes  no  distinction 
either  as  regards  the  term  or  the  matter.     His  determinism,  with  its 
"  servum  arbitrium,"  left  no  room  for  actual  grace  to  perform  any  real 
work  ;    this  he  admits  more  plainly  of  the  time  preceding  justification 
than  of  that  which  follows  it.     Cp.  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  206  :  "  Ad  primam 
gratiam  sicut  et  ad  gloriam  semper  nos  habermis  passive  sicut  mulier  ad 
conceptum,"   etc.     It  is  here  he  introduces  his   "  mystical  "   recom- 
mendation, viz.   to  suffer  God's  strong  grace,  and  without  any  act  of 
reason  or  will  "  in  tenebras  ac  velut  in  perditionem  et  annihilationem  ire," 
however  hard  that  may  be.    Here  we  find  nothing  about  any  "  educative 
and  moulding  energy." 

2  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  pp.  170-6. 


250  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

the  sacrament  of  Penance,  and  they  declare  it  absurd  that  the 
Apostle  should  speak  of  sin  dwelling  within  him  [as  a  matter  of 
fact  the  Schoolmen  did  nothing  of  the  sort].  The  words  '  habitat 
in  me  peccatum  '  were  a  fearful  scandal  to  them.  They  fled  to 
the  false  and  pernicious  assertion  that  Paul  is  speaking  merely 
in  the  person  of  the  carnal  man  [unregenerate],  whereas  he  is, 
in  truth,  speaking  of  his  own  person  [and  of  the  righteous].  They 
say  foolishly  that  in  the  righteous  there  is  no  sin,  and  yet  the 
Apostle  obviously  teaches  the  contrary  in  the  plainest  and  most 
open  fashion."1 

Of  this  passionate  reversal  of  the  old  exegesis,  Denifle,  after 
having  pointed  out  the  real  state  of  the  question  by  quoting  the 
commentators,  says  :  "  Luther  merely  exhibits  his  ignorance, 
prejudice  and  prepossession  ...  he  was  not  acting  in  the 
interests  of  learning  at  all."2  Of  Luther's  twelve  arguments  in 
favour  of  his  interpretation  he  remarks  :  "in  order  to  convince 
oneself  that  the  [opposite]  view,  now  almost  universally  held, 
is  the  correct  one,  it  is  only  necessary  to  glance  at  Luther's 
twelve  proofs.  They  are  utterly  fallacious,  beg  the  question  and 
take  for  grarted  what  is  not  conceded."3  This  judgment  is 
amply  justified.  Yet  Luther,  at  the  end  of  his  long  demonstra- 
tion, exclaims  :  "  It  is  really  surprising  that  anyone  could 
have  imagined  that  the  Apostle  was  speaking  in  the  person  of  the 
old  and  carnal  man."  "  No,  the  Apostle  teaches  regarding  the 
justified  that  they  are  at  the  same  time  righteous  and  sinners, 
righteous  because  Christ's  righteousness  covers  them  and  is 
imputed  to  them,  sinners  because  they  do  not  fulfil  the  law  and 
are  not  without  concupiscence."*  We  can  only  say  of  Luther's 
remarks  on  the  Scholastics  that,  without  really  being  acquainted 
with  them,  he  here  again  blindly  abuses  them  because  they  were 
opposed  to  his  new  theological  views. 

It  was  merely  his  prejudice  against  the  Scholastics  which  led 
him  to  continue  :  "  Their  stupid  doctrine  has  deceived  the  world 
and  caused  untold  mischief,  for  the  consequence  was,  that  who- 
ever was  baptised  and  absolved  at  once  looked  upon  himself  as 
free  from  sin,  became  sure  of  his  righteousness,  folded  his  arms, 
and,  because  he  was  unconscious  of  any  sin,  considered  it  super- 
fluous to  trouble  to  struggle  or  to  purify  himself  by  &'ghs  and 
tears,  by  sorrow  for  sin  and  efforts  to  conquer  it.  No,  sin  remains 
even  in  the  spiritual  man,"  etc.  He  appeals  to  St.  Augustine, 
indeed  to  the  very  passage  to  which  the  Scholastics  were  in- 
debted for  their  interpretation  of  St.  Paul's  words  concerning 
the  righteous.  As  remarked  before  (p.  98),  Augustine  is,  how- 
ever, very  far  from  teaching  that  there  is  in  the  righteous  real 
guilt  and  sin,  when,  following  St.  Paul,  he  speaks  of  the  sinful 
concupiscence  which  dwells  in  the  regenerate. 

Luther  would  have  avoided  a  great  number  of  mistakes  in  his 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  178. 

8  "  Luther  und  Luthertum,"  I1,  P   515  f. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  517,  n.  3. 

4  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  175  f. 


FREEDOM  FROM  THE   LAW       251 

interpretation  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  had  he  conscientiously 
studied  the  older  expositors  instead  of  blindly  opposing  them. 

The  passage  in  Hebrews  xi.  1,  which  was  of  the  greatest 
importance  for  his  views  ("  Est  fides  sperandarum  substantia 
rerum,  argumentum  non  apparentium  "),  he  interprets  in  a  false 
sense,  whereas  St.  Thomas  takes  it  correctly.  He  takes  "  sub- 
stantia," etc.  (fXiri^o/j.^vuv  vir&ffTOffis  irpay/juiTwv)  as  "  possessio  et 
fac,ultas  futurarum  rerum,"  and  the  word  "argumentum"  (ZXeyxos) 
as  "  signum."1  It  was  only  in  1519  that  he  learnt  from 
Melanchthon  that  this  interpretation  could  not  be  made  to  agree 
with  the  Greek  text.  Even  when  making  known  his  mistake  he 
gives  a  side  hit  at  the  Sententiarii,  i.e.  the  Scholastics.  And 
yet  he  would  have  found  the  correct  interpretation  in  St. 
Thomas's  "  Summa  Theologica,"  and  also  in  his  Commentary  on 
Romans,  viz.  that  "  substantia  "  here  means  foundation,  or  first 
beginning  ("  fides  est  prima  pars  iustitice  "),  while  "argumentum" 
has  the  sense  of  firm  assent,  i.e.  to  the  truth  that  "  is  not  seen."2 

To  sum  up  briefly  here  some  of  the  fundamental  theo- 
logical confusions  of  which  the  author  of  the  Commentary 
on  Romans  is  guilty,  either  from  carelessness  or  in  the 
excitement  of  controversy,  we  may  mention  that  he 
confuses  freedom  with  willingness  or  joyousness,  the  works 
of  the  Mosaic  law  with  the  works  of  natural  or  Christian 
morality,  true  humility  with  self-annihilation  and  despair, 
confidence  with  presumption  ;  to  him  true  contrition  is 
grief  sensibly  manifested,  all  charity  other  than  perfect  is 
mere  perverse  self-seeking,  and  holy  fear  of  the  Divine 
judgment  and  penalties  is  a  slavish,  selfish  service. 

The  freedom  of  the  Christian  spirit,  bestowed  by  the 
gospel  in  contradistinction  to  Judaism,  Luther,  owing  to 
persistent  misapprehension,  makes  out  to  be  freedom 
regarding  outward  things  of  the  law.  Appealing  to  St. 
Paul's  teaching  concerning  the  liberty  of  the  gospel,  he 
says  :  "we  must  not  be  subject  to  the  burden  of  any  law 
to  such  an  extent  as  to  consider  the  outward  works  of  the 
law  necessary  for  salvation."3  Those  who  do  so  are,  accord- 
ing to  him,  attached  to  "  a  spiritual,  but  exceedingly 
reprehensible  "  view,  which  we  must  oppose  with  all  our 
might.  Away  with  those  whose  aim  it  is  to  "  fulfil  the  law 
by  means  of  many  observances."  "  The  law  is  to  be  ob- 
served not  because  we  must  keep  it,  but  because  we  choose 
to  do  so,  not  because  it  is  necessary,  but  because  it  is  per- 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  234  f.,  277.  2  Cp.  Denifle,  1,  p.  518  f. 

3  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  303. 


252  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

mitted."  Instead  of  this,  he  continues,  we  bow  to-day 
under  the  yoke  of  servitude,  fancy  it  is  necessary  and  yet 
wish  secretly  that  it  did  not  exist  ("  Hcec  servitus  hodie  late 
grassatur,"  etc.).  The  effect  of  such  distorted  principles 
on  his  views  regarding  the  commandments  of  the  Church 
is  very  obvious.  "  Concerning  the  outwTard  service  of  God," 
as  Denifle  has  already  pointed  out,  "  Luther  went  to  great 
lengths  in  his  defence  of  '  llbertasS  .  .  .  The  believer  is 
free  as  regards  all  things  ;  '  sufficit  charitas  de  corde  puro  ' 
he  frequently  repeated  at  the  very  time  when  he  was  vindi- 
cating himself  against  the  errors  of  the  Picards."1  Though 
as  yet  still  far  from  the  revulsion  which  was  to  come  later 
he  was  already  cherishing  the  principles  which  were  to  lead 
up  to  it. 

What  he  says  on  obedience  and  personality  in  dealing 
with  Romans  x.  and  the  word  of  faith  which  calls  for  sub- 
mission, exhibits  a  strange  medley  of  excessive  mystical 
severity  combined  with  a  free  handling  of  his  own  views, 
and  also  some  good  examples  of  his  stormy  dialectics.  It 
is  worth  our  while  to  dwell  a  little  on  these  passages  because 
the  train  of  thought  furnishes  a  curious  picture  of  the 
direction  of  the  young  Monk's  mind. 

"  The  faith  [which  justifies]  allows  itself  to  be  led  in  any 
direction,"2  he  says,  "and  is  ready  to  hear  and  to  yield;  for 
God  does  not  require  great  works,  but  the  putting  to  death  of 
the  old  man,  but  to  this  we  cannot  attain  without  submitting 
our  own  ideas  and  judgment  to  the  authority  of  another.  .  .  ." 
He  then  continues,  vaguely  confusing  faith  and  humility  :  "  The 
old  man  is  to  be  put  to  death  by  faith  in  the  Word  of  God.  But 
God's  Word  is  not  only  that  which  sounds  from  heaven,  but 
everything  that  comes  from  the  mouth  of  a  good  man,  more 
particularly  from  our  ecclesiastical  superiors.  That  is  why  the 
quarrelsome  will  hear  nothing  of  this  faith  and  take  offence  at 
the  word  of  faith.  Instead  of  believing  they  demand  proofs 
and  always  think  their  own  ideas  right,  and  those  of  others  false. 
But  whoever  does  not  know  how  to  submit  himself  and  always 
fancies  he  is  not  in  the  wrong,  exhibits  the  plainest  signs  that 
the  old  Adam  still  lives  in  him  and  that  Christ  has  not  yet  risen 
in  him."3  Then  follows  a  long  and  tedious  description  of  how 
"  man  must  surrender  his  mind  to  the  bondage  of  the  word  of 
the  Cross  and  renounce  himself  and  all  that  is  his  until  he  dies 
to  self."* 

It   is   surprising    to    find   in    the  mouth  of   Luther   such   an 

1  "  Luther  und  Luthertum,"  1,  p.  673.        8  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  241. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  242.  *  Ibid.,  p.  245. 


CONTRADICTION   A   CRITERION    253 

utterance  as  that  we  must  receive  with  submission  every  word 
of  a  godly  man  in  order  to  possess  "  faith  "  in  its  true  meaning, 
but  it  reappears  on  another  occasion  in  the  Commentary  under 
quite  peculiar  circumstances.  The  passage  is  a  still  more  glaring 
instance  of  confusion  and  is  worth  quoting  in  its  entirety  on 
accour.t  of  its  mistaken  train  of  thought  and  of  its  self-contra- 
diction and  jumping  from  one  point  to  another,  so  characteristic 
of  Lutl  er. 

The  explanation  of  Romans  hi.1  begins  with  a  general  assault 
on  the  "  proud  '  spirituals  '  in  the  Church,  with  their  great  and 
many  works,"  the  heading  chosen  being  that  "  Justification 
does  not  require  works  of  the  law,  but  true  faith  which  performs 
works  of  faith."  The  works  of  these  "  spirituals  "  are  not  works 
of  faith,  but  works  of  the  law,  for  as  they  are  proud  and  stiff- 
necked  they  "  do  not  believe  in  the  precepts  and  counsels  of 
those  who  speak  to  them  of  salvation."  Christ  Himself  speaks 
in  the  latter,  and  to  refuse  to  believe  them  in  any  one  particular 
is  to  c'eny  faith  in  Him  altogether  ("fides  consistit  in  indivi- 
sibili  ")  ;  for  the  same  reason  the  heretics,  if  they  deny  only  one 
article  of  the  faith,  really  deny  the  faith  as  a  whole.  In  a  word, 
these  proud  folk  "  lose  the  whole  faith,  thanks  merely  to  their 
stiffness  "  ("  periit  tola  fides  propter  unius  sensus  pertinaciam  ") ; 
so  important  is  it  to  give  way  to  truth  whenever  it  approaches 
us  in  humility  !  Justification  must  therefore  necessarily  take 
place  without  the  works  which  those  people  have  in  their  mind. 
If  a  man  cannot  readily  bear  contradiction  "  he  certainly  cannot 
be  saved  ;  for  there  is  no  surer  sign  that  our  ideas,  words  and 
works  are  of  God  than  contradiction  [!]  ;  everything  that  is  of 
God  must  be  rejected  by  man,  as  we  see  from  the  example  of  our 
Saviour,  and,  even  if  it  be  not  of  God,  contradiction  brings  us 
still  greater  profit  and  preserves  us  from  shipwreck." 

In  support  of  this  perplexing  doctrine  there  follow  examples 
and  quotations  from  the  Bible,  and  finally  this  conclusion  : 
"  it  is  a  safe  path  when  we  are  reproved,  cursed  and  blamed." 
He  does  not  seem  to  notice  that  this  assertion  provides  a  ground 
of  excuse  and  defence  for  the  so-called  "  proud  '  spirituals,'  " 
for  they,  too,  might  argue  that  his  contradiction  gave  a  sanction 
to  their  conduct. 

Luther  seems  to  have  had  only  himself  and  his  own  interests 
in  view  when  he  brought  forward  these  ideas,  beginning  with  the 
extreme  assertion  that  we  must  believe  every  word  that  a  good 
man  speaks  ;  he  apparently  wished  to  insist  on  himself  and  his 
followers  being  given  credence,  and  on  their  views — which  were 
the  views  of  faithful  counsellors — being  approved  by  the  defenders 
of  works,  whether  in  his  Order  or  outside  of  it.  As  he  encountered 
contradiction,  he  immediately  applied  to  his  own  case  the  very 
elastic  principle,  that  opposition  in  religious  matters  is  a  guarantee 
of  truth.  This  was  a  principle,  we  may  mention,  which  he  had 
made  his  own  ever  since  his  mystical  days,  and  which  at  a  later 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  86  £. 


254  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

date  and  indeed  till  the  end  of  his  life,  he  repeatedly  employed 
in  the  service  of  his  cause  during  his  struggle  with  the  Church. 

Continuing  his  harangue  against  the  "spirituals"  and  the 
heretics  with  whom  he  classes  them  he  goes  on  to  say  :  "  they 
buoy  themselves  up  in  their  idle  self-complacency  on  account 
of  their  faith  in  Christ,  but  in  vain,  as  they  will  not  believe  in 
that  which  is  Christ's.  The  faith  of  Christ  by  which  we  are 
justified  is  not  merely  faith  in  Christ,  or  in  the  person  of  Christ, 
but  in  all  that  is  Christ's."  "  Christ  is  not  divided  "  (1  Cor.  i. 
13).  Faith  is  something  indivisible,  Christ  and  whatever  is 
Christ's  is  one  and  the  same.1  Therefore  we  must  believe  both 
in  Christ  and  in  the  Church,  and  in  "  every  word  that  comes  from 
the  mouth  of  an  ecclesiastical  superior,  or  of  a  good,  pious  man." 
"  But  those  who  withdraw  themselves  from  their  superiors  will 
not  listen  to  their  words,  but  follow  their  own  ideas,"  he  again 
repeats  :  "  how  do  these,  I  ask,  believe  in  Christ  ?  They  believe 
in  His  birth  and  His  sufferings,  but  not  in  His  whole  word, 
consequently  they  deny  Him  altogether.  See  how  necessary  is 
the  very  greatest  humility,  as  we  who  believe  in  Christ  can  never 
be  sure  whether  we  believe  in  all  that  is  His,  and  therefore  must 
remain  uncertain  as  to  whether  we  believe  in  Him  Himself  ! 
Justification  can  only  proceed  from  such  a  fear  and  humility. 
But  the  proud  "  do  not  understand  the  exalted  subtilties  of  this 
faith  ;  they  think  they  are  in 'possession  of  the  whole  of  faith, 
yet  cannot  hear  the  Lord's  voice,  but  rather  resist  it  as  though  it 
were  false;  why  ?  because  it  is  opposed  to  their  own  ideas."2 
After  a  dialectical  digression  of  doubtful  character  the  hot- 
blooded  exegetist  continues :  All  the  Prophets  rise  up  against 
such  men,  for  they  always  commence  their  holy  message  with 
the  words  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  "  and,  "  whosoever  it  be  whom 
the  Lord  chooses  as  His  mouthpiece,  the  demand  is  for  faith, 
resignation,  humble  subjection  of  our  own  ideas ;  for  it  is  only  thus 
that  we  are  justified,  and  not  otherwise."  With  incredible  tenacity 
he  is  ever  harping  on  the  assertion  that  the  "  self-righteous  " 
only  deck  themselves  out  with  works  of  the  law,  but  find  no 
grace  with  God.  And  finally,  as  though  he  had  not  yet  said  a 
word  against  those  rebels  against  faith  and  the  Word  of  God,  he 
cries  :  "  Let  those  open  their  ears  who  believe  indeed  in  Christ, 
but  not  in  the  word  of  Christ,  who  do  not  listen  to  their  superiors 
and  who  wish  to  be  justified  without  this  obedience,  i.e.  without 
this  faith  in  God  and  merely  by  their  works."  In  another  out- 
burst he  shows  them — this  time  adopting  a  more  mystical  tone — • 
that  Christ  speaks  "  almost  always  when,  where  and  as  we  do 
not  expect."3  "  Who  can  discover  all  the  wily  attacks  of  Satan 
by  which  he  deceives  us  ?  "  Some  wish  to  be  justified  by  a 
"  slavish  fear,"  in  spite  of  their  disinclination  and  '  by  their  own 
strength  alone  "  ;  *  those  whom  he  deceives  more  artfully  feel  a 
desire  for  what  is  good,  "  but  in  their  self-complacency  they 
affect  superstitious  singularity  ('  singularitatis  et  superstitionis 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  87  f.  2  Ibid.,  p.  89. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  92.  *  Ibid.,  p.  93. 


INCONSISTENCIES    UNEXPLAINED    255 

affectatores  '),  they  become  rebels  [like  the  Observantines,  see 
p.  69],  and  under  a  show  of  obedience  and  love  of  God  they 
throw  off  their  submission  to  the  men  of  God,  i.e.  to  the  Vicars 
and  messengers  of  Christ."1  "  It  is  presumption  and  pride  which 
changes  works  of  grace  into  works  of  the  law,  and  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  into  human  righteousness  ;  for,"  etc.2  "  How  then 
can  you  be  proud  as  though  you  were  more  righteous  than  another, 
how  can  you  despise  him  who  sins,  when  you  yourself  [at  least, 
by  your  evil  inclinations]  are  sunk  in  the  same  mire  ?  "3  etc. 
"  But  they  receive  honour  of  men  on  account  of  their  righteous- 
ness,"4 a  subject  on  which  Luther  proceeds  to  enlarge. 

We  have  said  enough.  The  torrent  of  words  flows  on  aimlessly 
in  this  way,  ever  labouring  the  same  subject ;  all  this  is  given 
us  in  lieu  of  real  exegesis  as  corollaries  to  two  verses  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

In  order  to  gauge  the  real  value  of  the  Commentary  on 
Romans  we  must  now  consider  the  treatment,  abounding 
in  inconsistencies,  accorded  by  Luther  to  man's  efforts  for 
obtaining  salvation. 

In  Luther's  mind  the  idea  that  God  does  all,  stands  side  by 
side  with  the  traditional  view  of  the  Church,  that  man  must 
prepare  himself  ;  he  has,  indeed,  a  curious  knack  of  remaining 
quite  unconscious  of  his  inconsistencies.  On  the  one  hand, 
according  to  what  he  says,  we  must  seek  for  justification  by  the 
exertion  of  the  fullest  human  effort,  and  this  labour  must  be  so 
strenuous  as  to  render  God  propitious  to  us  ("  Deum  sibi  pro- 
pitium  faciunt  ").5  That  is,  at  least,  what  we  are  told  at  the  end 
of  the  Commentary,  but  at  the  beginning  we  read  :  "  The  faith 
which  is  to  justify  must  manifest  its  works,  works  of  the  law  are 
not  sufficient,  it  must  be  '  a  living  faith  which  performs  its  own 
works.'  "6  "  When  James  and  Paul  say  that  man  is  justified  by 
works,  they  are  opposing  the  false  opinion  that  faith  without 
its  works  is  sufficient,  whereas  such  a  faith  is  not  faith  at 
all."7  According  to  this,  it  is  plain,  that,  at  that  time,  the  idea 
of  man's  co-operation  in  the  work  of  salvation  by  the  use  of  his 
liberty  still  hovered  in  Luther's  mind.  But  any  idea  of  this  kind 
is  elsewhere  confronted  and  peremptorily  dismissed  by  another 
chain  of  ideas.  How  are  we  to  make  efforts  by  our  own  free  will 
when  we  do  not  possess  free  will  for  doing  what  is  good  ?  "  As 
though,"  he  says,  "  we  had  free  will  at  our  disposal  whenever  we 
want  !  Such  an  idea  of  free  will  can  only  serve  to  lull  us  into  a 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  94.  2  Ibid.,  p.  95.  3  Ibid.,  p.  96. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  97.  5  Ibid.,  p.  323  f.    Cp.  above,  p.  218  f. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  86  :   "  Igitur  iustificatio  requirit  non  opera  legis,  sed  vivam 
fidem,  quce  sua  operetur  opera."    Cp.  above,  p.  214,  n.  6,  where  he  speaks 
of  the  "  prceparatio  "  for  justification  by  the  fulfilling  of  the  law. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  85.     It  is  possible  that,  without  making  any  distinction, 
he  here  passes  on  to  the  activity  of  the  righteous.    Cp.  Denifle- Weiss,  1 2, 
pp.  466,  467,  on  Luther's  want  of  clearness  regarding  justifying  faith. 


256  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

false  security."  ("  Securi  stertimus,  freti  libero  arbitrio  quod  ad 
inanum  habentes,  quando  volumus,  possumus  pie  intendere.")1 

Here  he  will  only  admit  that  man  has  freedom  to  pray  for  the 
right  use  of  his  freedom.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  even  this 
liberty  which  might  incite  us  to  prayer,  is  non-existent.  For 
in  respect  of  anything  that  is  good  [whether  natural  or  super- 
natural, he  makes  no  distinction]  we  are  only  like  raw  metal  or  a 
wooden  stick.  Because  God's  grace  is  the  hand  which  works  in  us 
for  good  and  which  performs  our  vital  acts  within  us,  while  we 
ourselves  are  quiescent  and  absolutely  powerless,  "Luther  says 
in  Romans  iii.  :  "I  have  frequently  insisted  before  upon  the 
fact,  that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  have  of  ourselves  the  will  or 
the  heart  to  fulfil  the  law."  Why  ?  "  Because  the  law  is 
spiritual."  Meditation  on  man's  enslaved  condition  as  the 
result  of  concupiscence,  he  declares  in  another  passage,  proves 
my  contention,  no  less  than  the  terrible  truth  of  predestination. 

"  Luther  felt  in  himself  that  belief  in  the  eternal  predestination 
by  God  [Absolute  election  to  grace]  was  the  most  powerful 
support  of  his  experience  of  the  complete  inadequacy  of  human 
works  and  the  efficacy  of  grace  alone."  The  Protestant  theologian2 
who  says  this,  to  instance  Luther's  faith  in  the  action  of  grace, 
here  quotes  from  the  passages  from  the  Commentary  on  Romans, 
according  to  which  God  on  the  one  hand  bestows  His  grace  only 
on  those  He  chooses,  but  on  the  other  hand  infallibly  saves  those 
He  elects  to  save.  "  The  Spirit,"  Luther  has  it,  "  supports  the 
latter  by  His  presence  in  all  their  weaknesses,  so  that  they 
prevail  in  circumstances  where  they  would  otherwise  despair  a 
thousand  times."3  It  is,  however,  remarkable  that  just  after 
this  explanation  the  cry  bursts  from  Luther's  lips  :  "  Where  are 
now  the  good  works,  where  the  freedom  of  the  will  ?  "  Here  the 
irresistible  "  action  of  grace  alone  "  appears  as  a  direct  con- 
sequence of  Luther's  then  views,  though  he  refrains  from  ex- 
pressing himself  more  clearly  as  to  the  nature  of  actual  grace. 

Thus  in  his  mind  are  combined  two  widely  divergent 
ideas,  viz.  that  God  does  everything  in  man  who  is  devoid 
of  freedom — and  that  man  must  draw  nigh  to  God  by 
prayer  and  works  of  faith.  It  is  a  strange  psychological 
phenomenon  to  see  how,  instead  of  endeavouring  to  solve 
the  contradiction  and  examine  the  question  in  the  light  of 
calm  reason,  he  gives  free  play  to  feeling  and  imagination, 
now  passionately  proving  to  the  infamous  Observants  that 
man  is  absolutely  unable  to  do  anything,  now  insisting  on 
the  need  of  preparation  for  grace,  i.e.  unconsciously  be- 
coming the  defender  of  the  Church's  doctrine  of  free  will 
and  human  co-operation.  The  fact  is,  he  still,  to  some  extent, 

1  "Schol,  Rom.,"  p.  321.  2  Braun,  "  Concupiscenz/'  p.  34. 

3  See  above,  p.  249,  n.  1,  and  p.  204. 


PROGRESS   IN   IDEAS.  257 

thinks  with  the  Church.  It  was  no  easy  task  for  him  to 
break  away  from  a  view,  which  is  so  natural  to  man  and 
so  much  in  accordance  with  faith,  viz.  that  there  must  be 
some  preparation  on  man's  part  for  justification,  in  which 
however,  actual  grace,  which  comes  to  the  assistance  of  his 
will  and  becomes  part  of  it,  also  has  its  share. 

Luther's  peculiar  mysticism  with  its  preponderance  of 
feeling  was,  in  part,  the  cause  of  his  overlooking  his  task, 
which  was  to  propound  from  his  professorial  chair  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Church  in  definite  and  exact  terms- — so  far  as  this 
was  possible  to  him  writh  his  insufficient  theological  training. 
To  this  may  be  added  the  fact  that  the  wealth  of  biblical 
quotations,  whether  to  the  point  or  not,  which  he  is  wont 
to  adduce,  tends  to  distract  and  confuse  him  as  soon  as  he 
attempts  to  draw  any  clear  inferences. 

According  to  Denifle  a  certain  progress  is  apparent  in  the 
Commentary  on  Romans  inasmuch  as  the  first  three  chapters 
show  Luther's  new  doctrines  still  in  an  inchoate  form. 
Luther,  there,  is  seeking  for  something  he  has  not  yet  fully 
grasped,  and  the  confusion  of  his  language  is  a  proof  that 
he  has  not  as  yet  made  up  his  mind.  There  is,  however, 
one  point,  according  to  Denifle,  on  which  he  is  quite  definite, 
viz.  concupiscence,  though  he  does  not  yet  know  how  to 
combine  it  with  his  other  ideas ;  but,  by  the  end  of  chapter  iii., 
this  doubt  has  been  set  aside,  he  has  identified  con- 
cupiscence with  original  sin  and  reached  other  conclusions 
besides.  Still  he  avoids  the  principal  question  as  to  how 
far  human  co-operation  is  necessary  in  the  act  of  justifica- 
tion.1 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  exactly  this  progress  owing  to 
Luther's  want  of  clearness  and  precision  of  expression,  and 
to  his  contradictory  treatment  of  certain  capital  points. 
The  Commentary  on  Romans  as  it  proceeds  hardly  shows 
any  improvement  in  this  respect.  With  extraordinary 
elasticity  of  mind,  if  we  may  so  speak,  the  author  without 
the  slightest  compunction  advocates  concerning  the  most 
profound  theological  questions,  especially  grace,  ideas  which 
differ  from  and  contradict  each  other.  As  at  the  very 
commencement  we  meet  some  of  th*e  most  incisive  new 
theses  of  Lutheranism — the  imputation  of  the  righteousness 
1  "  Luther  und  Luthertum,"  I2,  p.  447  f.,  466  f. 
I. — s 


258  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

of  Christ,  the  sinfulness  of  the  natural  man  and  his  inability 
to  do  what  is  good,  and  likewise  predestination  to  hell  in  its 
most  outrageous  form— it  is  natural  to  infer  that  Luther 
had  already  forsaken  the  Catholic  doctrine  on  these  points 
at  the  time  he  was  preparing  his  lectures  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  i.e.  about  the  summer  of  1515.  His  mis- 
apprehension of  this  Epistle  must  have  had  its  influence  on 
his  whole  trend,  and  the  elements  already  at  work  in  his 
mind  helped  to  decide  him  to  commit  to  writing  in  his 
Commentary  his  supposed  new  and  important  doctrinal 
discoveries. 

We  might  expect  to  find  in  the  Commentary  the  most 
noticeable  progress  where  he  deals  with  preparation  for 
grace,  for  this  was  surely  the  point  on  which  he  was  bound 
to  come  into  conflict  with  other  doctrines.  It  is,  however, 
hard  to  tell  whether  he  realised  the  difficulty.  It  is  true 
that  much  less  stress  is  laid  upon  preparation  for  justification 
as  the  work  proceeds,  whereas  at  the  commencement  the 
author  speaks  unhesitatingly  of  the  cultivation  of  the  will 
which  must  be  undertaken  in  order  to  bring  down  grace. 
(See  above,  p.  214.)  This,  however,  might  merely  be 
accidental  and  due  to  the  fact  that,  in  the  last  chapters, 
St.  Paul  is  dealing  mainly  with  the  virtues  of  the  justified. 
Towards  the  end  of  the  Epistle,  in  connection  with  what 
the  Apostle  says  on  charity  and  faith  in  the  righteous,  the 
nature  of  that  "  humilitas  "  which  Luther  so  eulogises  as  a 
preliminary  and  accompaniment  of  the  appropriation  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  undergoes  a  change  and  appears 
more  as  faith  with  charity,  or  charity  with  faith.  Luther's 
manner  of  speaking  thus  varies  according  to  the  subject 
with  which  Paul  is  dealing. 

If  we  take  the  middle  of  the  year  1515  as  the  starting- 
point  of  Luther's  new  theology,  then  many  of  the  statements 
in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  especially  in  its  latter 
part,  become  more  significant  as  precursors  of  Luther's 
errors.  The  favourable  view  we  expressed  above  of  his 
work  on  the  Psalms,  as  regards  its  agreement  with  the 
theology  of  the  Church,  was  only  meant  to  convey  that  a 
Catholic  interpretation  of  the  questionable  passages  was 
possible  ;  this,  however,  cannot  be  said  of  the  theses  in  the 
Commentary  on  Romans  which  we  have  just  been  con- 
sidering. We  now  understand  why  unwillingness  to  allow 


"THE   PITH   OF   SCRIPTURE"      259 

any  ability  in  man  to  do  what  is  good  is  the  point  in  which 
Luther's  work  on  the  Psalms  goes  furthest.  There  the 
doctrine  of  his  "  profundior  theologia "  is  :  "  We  must 
account  ourselves  as  nothing,  as  sinful,  liars,  as  dead  in 
God's  sight ;  we  must  not  trust  in  any  merits  of  our  own." 
There,  too,  we  find  paradoxes  such  as  the  following  :  "  God 
is  wonderful  in  His  saints,  the  most  beautiful  is  to  Him  the 
most  hideous,  the  most  infamous  the  most  excellent ; 
whoever  thinks  himself  upright,  with  him  God  is  not  pleased. 
...  In  the  recognition  of  this  lie  the  pith  of  the  Scripture 
and  the  kernel  of  the  heavenly  grain."1  Such  expressions 
are,  it  is  true,  not  unlike  what  we  sometimes  hear  from  the 
Church's  theologians  and  saints,  but  in  the  light  of  the 
Commentary  on  Romans  they  become  more  important  as 
signs  of  transition. 

We  must  not  forget,  in  view  of  the  numerous  enigmas 
which  the  boldness  of  the  Commentary  on  Romans  presents, 
that  it  bears  merely  a  semi-public  character  and  was  not 
intended  for  publication.  In  this  work,  destined  only  for 
the  lecture-room,  Luther  did  not  stop  to  weigh  or  fine  down 
his  words,  but  gave  the  reins  to  his  impulse,  thus  offering 
us  a  so  much  the  more  interesting  picture  of  his  inmost 
thoughts. 

Some  important  particulars,  in  which  this  work  differs 
from  other  public  utterances  made  by  Luther  about  the 
same  time,  are  to  be  explained  by  the  familiarity  with  which 
he  is  speaking  to  his  pupils. 

In  the  sermons  on  the  Ten  Commandments,  published  in  1518 
but  preached  in  the  two  preceding  years  and  consequently 
intended  for  general  consumption,  he  speaks  differently  of 
concupiscence  than  in  the  Commentary.  In  the  sermons  he 
declares  that  desires  so  long  as  they  are  involuntary  are  certainly 
not  sinful.  He  even  says  to  a  man  who  is  troubled  on  account 
of  his  involuntary  temptations  against  purity  :  "  No,  no,  you 
have  not  lost  your  chastity  by  such  thoughts ;  on  the  contrary, 
you  have  never  been  more  chaste  if  you  are  only  sure  they  came 
to  you  against  your  will.  .  .  .  It  is  a  true  sign  of  a  lively  sense  of 
chastity  when  a  man  feels  displeasure,  and  it  need  not  even 
be  absolute  displeasure,  otherwise  there  would  be  no  attraction  ; 
he  is  in  an  uncertain  state,  now  willing,  now  unwilling.  ...  In 

1  Cp.  Braun,  "  Concupiscenz,"  p.  74  f.,  who  sees  in  such  passages 
the  trace  of  "  Augustinian-Bernardine  piety,"  which  formed  "  the 
inner  link  between  Luther  and  (the  mystic)  Staupitz." 


260  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

the  struggle  for  chastity  the  little  bark  is  tossed  hither  and 
thither  on  the  waters,  while  [according  to  the  gospel]  Christ 
is  asleep  within.  Rouse  Christ  so  that  He  may  command  the 
sea,  i.e.  the  flesh,  and  the  wind,  i.e.  the  devil."1  In  the  public 
Indulgence  theses  of  1517,  he  is  also  careful  not  to  express  his 
erroneous  views  on  grace  and  the  nature  of  man.  It  is  character- 
istic of  him  how  he  changes  even  the  form  of  expression  when 
repeating  an  assertion  which  is  also  made  in  the  Commentary  on 
Romans.  In  the  Commentary  he  had  written,  that  too  great 
esteem  of  outward  works  led  to  a  too  frequent  granting  of 
Indulgences,  and  that  the  Pope  and  the  Bishops  were  more  cruel 
than  cruelty  itself  if  they  did  not  freely  grant  the  same,  or  even 
greater  Indulgences,  for  God's  sake  and  the  good  of  souls,  seeing 
that  they  themselves  had  received  all  they  had  for  nothing. 2  This 
violent  utterance  here  appears  as  the  expression  of  his  own 
opinion.  In  the  theses,  however,  he  presents  the  same  view  to 
the  public  with  much  greater  caution  ;  he  says,  these  and 
similar  objections  brought  forward  by  scrupulous  laymen,  were 
caused,  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  Pope,  by  dissolute  Indulg- 
ence preachers  ;  one  might  hear  "  such-like  calumnious  charges 
and  subtle  questions  from  seculars,"  and  they  must  "  be  taken  into 
account  and  answered."3 

The  ideas  contained  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans  are 
also  to  be  met  with  in  the  other  lectures  which  followed. 
Of  this  the  present  writer  convinced  himself  by  glancing 
through  the  Vatican  copies.  The  approaching  publication 
of  the  copies  in  the  "  Anfange  reformatorischcr  Bibelaus- 
legung,"  of  Johann  Ficker,  a  work  which  commenced 
with  the  Commentary  on  Romans,  will  supply  further 
details.  The  character  of  the  Wittenberg  Professor  is, 
however,  such  that  we  may  expect  some  surprising  revela- 
tions. Generally  speaking,  a  movement  in  the  direction  of 
the  doctrine  of  "  faith  alone  "  is  noticeable  throughout  his 
work. 

In  view  of  Picker's  forthcoming  edition  it  will  suffice  to 
quote  a  few  excerpts  from  the  Commentary  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  of  1517,  according  to  the  Vatican  MS. 
(Pal.  lat.  1825).4  They  show  that  the  author  in  his  exegesis 
of  this  Epistle  is  imbued  with  the  same  idea  as  in  the  Com- 
mentary on  Romans,  namely,  that  Paul  exalts  (in  Luther's 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  486. 

*  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  243. 

8  Thes.,  81  seq.,  90.  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  291  seg.  Weim.  ed.,  1, 
pp.  625,  627. 

4  Regarding  this  MS.  see  Ficker's  Introduction  to  the  Com- 
mentary on  Romans,  p.  xxix.  f. 


FROM  COMMENTARY  ON  HEBREWS     261 

sense)  the  redemption  in  Christ,  and  Grace,  in  opposition  to 
righteousness  by  works.  They  also  betray  how  he  becomes 
gradually  familiar  with  the  doctrine  that  faith  alone  justifies, 
without  any  longer  placing  humility  in  the  foreground  as 
the  intermediary  of  justification  as  he  once  had  done. 

On  folio  46  of  the  MS.  he  says  :  "  We  should  notice  how 
Paul  in  this  Epistle  extols  grace  as  against  the  pride  of  the 
law  and  of  human  righteousness  ('  extollit  adversus  superbiam' 
etc.)-  He  proves  that  without  Christ  neither  the  law,  nor  the 
priesthood,  nor  prophecy,  nor  the  service  of  angels  sufficed,  but 
that  all  these  were  established  with  a  view  to  the  coming  Christ. 
It  is  therefore  his  intention  to  teach  Christ  only." 

On  folio  117  Luther  sets  forth  the  difference  between 
"  purity  in  the  New  and  in  the  Old  Testament."  In  the  New  Law 
the  Blood  of  Christ  brings  inward  purification.  "  As  conscience 
cannot  alter  sin  that  has  been  committed  and  is  utterly  unable  to 
escape  the  future  wrath,  it  is  necessarily  terrified  and  oppressed 
wherever  it  turns.  From  this  state  of  distress  it  can  be  released 
only  by  the  Blood  of  Christ.  If  it  looks  in  faith  upon  this  Blood, 
it  believes  and  knows  that  by  the  same  its  sins  are  washed  away 
and  removed.  Thus  it  is  purified  by  faith  and  at  the  same  time 
quieted,  so  that,  in  joy  over  the  remission  of  its  sins,  it  no  longer 
fears  punishment.  No  law  can  assist  in  this  purification,  no 
works,  in  fact  nothing  but  the  Blood  of  Christ  alone  ('  ad  hanc 
munditiam  .  .  .  nihil  nisi  unicus  hie  sanguis  Christi  facere 
potest '),  and  even  this  cannot  accomplish  it  unless  man  believes  in 
his  heart  that  it  has  been  shed  for  the  remission  of  sin.  For  it  is 
necessary  to  believe  the  testator  when  He  says  :  '  This  Blood 
which  shall  be  shed  for  you  and  for  many  unto  the  remission  of 
sins."  " 

From  Paul's  words  he  goes  on  to  infer  that  "  good  works  done 
outside  of  grace  are  sins,  in  the  sense  that  they  may  be  called 
dead  works.  For  if,  without  the  Blood  of  Christ,  conscience 
is  morally  impure,  it  can  only  perform  what  corresponds  with 
its  nature,  namely,  what  is  impure.  ..."  Folio  117':  "It 
follows  that  a  good,  pure,  quiet,  happy  conscience  can  only  be 
the  result  of  faith  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  But  this  is  founded 
only  on  the  Word  of  God,  which  assures  us  that  Christ's  Blood 
was  shed  unto  the  remission  of  sins." 

Folio  118  :  "It  follows  that  those  who  contemplate  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  only  from  compassion,  or  from  some  other  reason 
than  in  order  to  attain  to  faith,  contemplate  them  to  little 
purpose,  and  in  a  heathenish  manner.  .  .  .  The  more  frequently 
we  look  upon  the  Blood  of  Christ  the  more  firmly  must  we  believe 
that  it  was  shed  for  our  own  sins  ;  for  this  is  '  to  drink  and  eat 
spiritually,'  to  grow  strong  through  this  faith  in  Christ  and  to 
become  incorporated  in  Him." 


CHAPTER    VII 

SOME  PARTICULARS  WITH  REGARD  TO  THE  OUTWARD 
CIRCUMSTANCES  AND  INWARD  LIFE  OF  LUTHER  AT  THE 
TIME  OF  THE  CRISIS 

1.  Luther  as  Superior  of  eleven  Angus tinian  Houses 

His  election  as  Rural  Vicar,  which  took  place  at  the  con- 
vocation of  the  Order  at  Gotha  (on  April  29,  1515),  had 
raised  Luther  to  a  position  of  great  importance  in  his 
Congregation. 

He  had,  within  a  short  time,  risen  from  being  Sub-Prior 
and  Regent  of  the  Wittenberg  House  of  Studies  to  be  the 
chief  dignitary  in  the  Congregation  after  Staupitz,  the  Vicar- 
General.  The  office  was  conferred  on  him,  as  was  customary, 
for  a  period  of  three  years,  i.e.  till  May,  1518.  Of  the 
eleven  monasteries  which  formed  the  District  the  two  most 
important  and  influential  were  Erfurt  and  Wittenberg. 
The  others  were  Dresden,  Herzberg,  Gotha,  Langensalza, 
Nordhausen,  Sangershausen,  Magdeburg  and  Neustadt  on 
the  Orla,  to  which  Eisleben  was  added,  when,  in  July,  1515, 
Staupitz  and  Luther  presided  at  the  opening  of  a  new 
monastery  there.  As  Staupitz  was  frequently  absent  from 
the  District,  the  demands  made  on  the  activity  of  the  new 
Superior  were  all  the  greater. 

At  this  time  too  his  professorial  Bible  studies  and  his 
efforts  to  clear  up  the  confusion  and  difficulties  existing  in 
his  mind  must  have  kept  him  fully  occupied.  In  addition 
to  this  there  was  the  dissension  within  the  Order  itself  on 
the  question  of  observance  and  of  the  constitution,  a  dis- 
pute which  required  for  its  settlement  a  man  filled  with 
zeal  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  monasteries,  and  one 
thoroughly  devoted  to  the  exalted  traditional  aims  of 
the  Congregation. 

The  mordant  discourse  on  the  "  Little  Saints  "  which 
the  fiery  Monk  delivered  on  May  1  at  the  Gotha  meeting 

262 


LUTHER'S   ASSOCIATES.  263 

showed  in  what  direction  the  influence  of  the  new  Rural 
Vicar  would  be  exerted.  Johann  Lang,  his  friend  who  was 
present  at  the  time,  had  a  good  reason  for  sending  this 
discourse  to  Mutian,  the  head  of  the  Humanists  at  Gotha ; 
the  bitter  critic  of  the  "  uncharitable  self-righteous  "  gave 
promise  of  the  establishing  of  a  freer  ideal  of  life  in  the  Order, 
and  so  original  and  powerful  a  speaker  was  certain  to  be 
strong  enough  to  draw  others  with  him. 

What  has  been  preserved  of  Luther's  correspondence  with 
the  priories  and  the  monks  of  his  District  is  unfortunately 
very  meagre ;  the  remarkable  rapidity  with  which  the 
Lutheran  innovations  spread  among  the  Augustinians 
speaks,  however,  at  a  later  date  very  plainly  of  the  powerful 
influence  which  he  had  exerted  on  his  brother  monks  during 
the  years  that  he  held  the  office  of  Rural  Vicar.  The  first 
result  of  his  influence  was  to  bring  into  the  ascendant  a 
conception  of  the  aims  of  the  Order  differing  from  that  of 
the  Observantines.  Hand  in  hand  with  this  went  the 
recruiting  of  followers  for  his  new  theological  ideas  and  for 
the  so-called  Augustinian  or  Pauline  movement,  of  which 
the  Wittenberg  Faculty  was  the  headquarters. 

Johann  Lang  prepared  the  ground  for  Luther  at  the 
Erfurt  monastery,  whither  he  went  in  1515  and  where  he 
became  Prior  in  1516.  The  Augustinian,  George  Spenlein, 
Luther's  Wittenberg  friend,  to  whom  he  addressed  the 
curious,  mystical  letter  on  Christ's  righteousness  (above, 
p.  88  f.),  became,  later  on,  a  Lutheran  preacher  and  parson 
at  Arnstadt.  Luther,  during  his  Vicariate,  had  as  Prior  at 
Wittenberg  his  friend  Wenceslaus  Link,  who  was  also 
Doctor  and  Professor  in  the  Theological  Faculty.  He  wras, 
however,  relieved  of  his  office  of  Prior  in  1516,  left  Wittenberg 
and  went  to  Munich  as  preacher,  whence  he  removed  to 
Nuremberg  at  the  beginning  of  1517  ;  in  that  town  he 
became  later  a  zealous  promoter  of  the  Reformation.  The 
friendship  which  Luther  had  formed  at  Wittenberg  with 
George  Spalatin,  the  astute  courtier  in  priest's  dress,  was, 
however,  of  still  greater  importance  to  him  in  his  work  both 
within  the  Order  and  outside.  Spalatin,  who  had  received 
a  humanist  training  under  Marschalk  and  Mutian  at  Erfurt, 
came  in  1511  to  Wittenberg,  where  he  entered  the  family 
of  the  Elector  as  tutor  to  his  two  nephews,  and,  in  1513,  was 
promoted  to  the  office  of  Court  Chaplain  and  private  secre- 


264  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

tary  to  the  Elector.  He  readily  undertook  the  management 
at  Court  of  the  business  in  connection  with  the  priories 
under  Luther's  supervision,  and,  later  on,  contrived  by  his 
influence  in  high  quarters  to  promote  the  spread  of  the 
religious  innovations. 

The  letters  which  Luther  wrote  as  Vicar  he  signed,  as  a 
rule,  "Frater  Martinus  Luther,"  though  sometimes  "Luder, 
Augustinensis,"  usually  with  the  addition  "  Vicarius,"  and 
on  one  occasion  "  Vicarius  Districtus,"  which,  needless  to 
say,  does  not  mean  "  the  strict  vicar  "  as  it  has  been  mis- 
translated, but  refers  to  his  office  as  Rural  Vicar  of  the 
District. 

In  these  letters,  chiefly  in  Latin,  which  Luther  addressed 
to  his  monasteries,  we  meet  with  some  pages  containing 
beautiful  and  inspiring  thoughts.  There  can  be  no  question 
that  he  knew  how  to  intervene  with  energy  where  abuses 
called  for  it,  just  as  he  also  could  speak  words  of  consolation, 
encouragement  and  kindly  admonition  to  those  in  fault. 
The  letters  also  contain  some  exhortations,  well-worded 
and  full  of  piety,  tending  to  the  moral  advancement  of 
zealous  members  of  the  Order.  The  allusions  to  faith  in 
Christ,  our  only  help,  and  the  absolute  inadequacy  of  human 
effort,  are,  however,  very  frequent,  though  he  does  not  here 
express  his  new  theological  opinions  so  definitely  as  he 
does  in  expounding  St.  Paul. 

To  Johann  Lang,  who,  as  Prior  of  the  Erfurt  house,  met  with 
many  difficulties  from  his  subordinates,  he  writes  comforting  and 
consoling  him  :  "  Be  strong  and  the  Lord  will  be  with  you  ;  call 
to  mind  that  you  are  set  up  for  a  sign  which  shall  be  contradicted 
(Luke  ii.  34),  to  the  one,  indeed,  a  good  odour  unto  life,  to 
another  an  odour  of  death  (2  Cor.  ii.  16)."1  At  Erfurt,  as  the 
same  letter  shows,  he  had  to  intervene  in  the  interests  of  discipline. 
In  order  that  no  complaints  might  be  brought  against  the  Prior 
by  the  brethren  on  account  of  the  expenses  for  food  and  drink  in 
entertaining  guests  and  for  the  keep  of  those  who  collected  the 
alms  (terminarii)  he  orders  an  exact  account  to  be  kept  of  such 
expenses  ;  the  hostel  for  guests  might,  he  says,  become  a  real 
danger  to  the  monastery  if  not  properly  regulated  ;  the  monastery 
must  not  be  turned  into  a  beer-house  or  tavern,  but  must  remain 
a  religious  house.  To  uphold  "  the  honour  of  the  Reverend 
Father  Vicar,"  Staupitz,  he  directed  that  three  contumacious 
monks  should  be  removed,  by  way  of  punishment,  from  Erfurt 
to  a  less  important  convent.  On  the  occasion  of  some  un- 
pleasantness which  Lang  experienced  from  his  brother  monks, 

1  May  29,  1516,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  37  f. 


HIS   ADMINISTRATION  265 

Luther  impressed  on  him  that,  after  receiving  this  blow  on  the 
one  cheek,  he  should  bravely  present  the  other  also  ;  "  and  this 
is  not  the  last  and  worst  slap  you  will  have  to  endure,  for  God's 
wisdom  is  as  yet  playing  with  you  and  preparing  you  for  greater 
struggles."1 

"  Be  mild  and  friendly  to  the  Prior  of  Nuremberg,"  he  says 
to  him  at  a  later  date  ;  "  it  is  necessary  to  be  so,  just  because 
he  is  harsh  and  unfriendly.  One  who  is  severe  cannot  get 
the  better  of  a  hard  man,  but  he  who  is  mild  can,  just  as  one  devil 
cannot  overcome  another,  but  the  finger  of  God  must  do  this."2 

And  again,  "  As  regards  the  brother  who  has  fallen  away,  take 
pity  on  him  in  the  Lord.  He  has  forsaken  you,  led  astray  by 
impiety,  but  you  must  not  on  that  account  be  wanting  in  charity 
and  turn  your  back  upon  him.  Do  not  take  the  scandal  too  much 
to  heart.  We  have  been  called,  baptised  and  ordained  in  order 
to  bear  the  burdens  of  others,  for  this  reason  the  office  clothes 
our  own  wretchedness  with  honour.  We  must,  according  to  the 
proverb,  ourselves  cover  our  neighbour's  shame,  as  Christ  was, 
still  is,  and  for  all  eternity  will  be  our  covering,  as  it  is  written  : 
'  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever  '  (Heb.  v.  6).  Therefore  beware  of 
desiring  to  be  so  clean  that  you  will  not  allow  yourself  to  be 
touched  by  what  is  unclean,  or  of  refusing  to  put  up  with  un- 
cleanness,  to  cover  it  over  and  to  wipe  it  away.  You  have  been 
raised  to  a  post  of  honour,  but  the  task  it  involves  is  to  bear 
dishonour.  It  is  on  the  cross  and  on  affronts  that  we  must  pride 
ourselves."3 

At  the  commencement  of  the  autumn  term  in  1516,  he  com- 
plained that  Lang  was  sending  him  too  many  brothers  to  study  at 
Wittenberg,  more  in  fact  than  he  was  able  to  provide  for,4  and 
later,  as  the  reason  for  his  concern,  he  mentions  that  the  Witten- 
berg house  already  numbered  41  inmates,  of  whom  22  were  priests 
and  12  students,  "  who  all  have  to  live  on  our  more  than  scanty 
means  ;  but  the  Lord  will  provide."5 

At  that  time  it  was  feared  that  Wittenberg  might  suffer  from 
an  attack  of  the  plague  which  was  raging  in  the  vicinity,  and 
which  actually  did  break  out  there  in  October.  Luther  reassures 
the  troubled  Prior  of  Erfurt,  who  had  besought  him  to  depart : 
"  It  is  possible  that  the  plague  may  interfere  with  the  lectures  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  which  I  have  just  commenced.  But, 
so  far,  it  only  snatches  away  two  or  three  victims  daily  at  most, 
and  sometimes  even  fewer.  .  .  .  And  whither  should  I  flee  ?  I 
trust  the  heavens  will  not  fall  even  should  brother  Martin  be 

1  August  30,  1516,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  49. 
8  In  September  (?),  1516,  ibid.,  p.  57. 

3  October  5,  1516,  ibid.,  p.  60.    The  expression  covering  of  our  shame 
occurs  frequently  in  his  writings,  thus  it  appears  in  "  Schol.  Rom.," 
p.  334,  where  Gal.  vi.  1  ("  Alter  alterius  onera  portate  ")  is  rendered  : 
"  Alter    alterius    ignominiam    portate "  ;     Christ    too    willingly    bore 
our  shame. 

4  September  (?),  1516,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  54. 

5  October  26,  1516,  ibid.,  p.  67. 


266  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

stricken.  I  shall  send  the  brothers  away  and  distribute  them 
should  the  mischief  increase  ;  I  have  been  appointed  here  and 
obedience  does  not  allow  of  my  taking  flight,  unless  a  new  order 
be  imposed  on  me  to  obey.  Not  as  though  I  do  not  fear  death, 
I  am  not  a  Paul  but  merely  an  expounder  of  Paul ;  but  I  trust 
that  the  Lord  will  deliver  me  from  my  fear."1 

When  a  member  of  the  Teutonic  Order  sought  for  admission 
into  the  Augustinian  house  at  Neustadt,  Luther  instructed  the 
Prior  there,  Michael  Dressel  (Tornator)  to  observe  very  carefully 
the  ecclesiastical  and  conventual  regulations  provided  for  such 
a  case.  "  We  must,  it  is  true,  work  with  God  in  the  execution  of 
this  pious  project,"  he  writes,  "  but  we  shall  do  this  not  by 
allowing  the  ideas  of  the  individual,  however  pious  his  intentions 
may  be,  to  decide  the  matter,  but  by  carrying  out  the  prescribed 
law,  the  regulations  of  our  predecessors,  and  the  decrees  of  the 
Fathers  :  whoever  sets  these  aside  need  not  hope  to  advance  or 
find  salvation,  however  good  his  will  may  be."2 

This  Prior  also  had  complained  of  the  numerous  contrarieties 
which  he  experienced  from  his  subordinates,  and  that  he  was 
unable  to  enjoy  any  peace  of  soul.  Luther  says  to  him  among 
other  things  :3  "  The  man  whom  no  one  troubles  is  not  at  peace, 
that  is  rather  the  peace  of  this  world,  but  the  man  to  whom  people 
bring  all  their  troubles  and  who  nevertheless  remains  calm  and 
bears  everything  that  happens  with  joy.  You  say  with  Israel  : 
'  Peace,  peace,  and  there  is  no  peace  !  '  Say  rather  with  Christ  : 
the  cross,  the  cross,  there  is  no  cross.4  The  cross  will  at  once 
cease  to  be  a  cross  when  a  man  accepts  it  joyfully  and  says  : 
Blessed  cross,  sacred  wood,  so  holy  and  venerable  !  .  .  .  He 
who  with  readiness  embraces  the  cross  in  everything  that  he 
feels,  thinks  and  understands  will  in  time  find  the  fruit  of  his 
suffering  to  be  sweet  peace.  That  is  God's  peace,  under  which  our 
thoughts  and  desires  must  be  hidden  in  order  that  they  may  be 
nailed  to  the  cross,  i.e.  to  the  cross  of  contradiction  and  oppression. 
Thus  is  peace  truly  established  above  all  our  thinking  and 
desiring,  and  becomes  the  most  precious  jewel.  Therefore  take 
up  all  these  disturbances  of  your  peace  with  joy  and  clasp  them 
to  you  as  holy  relics,  instead  of  endeavouring  to  seek  peace 
according  to  your  own  ideas." 

When  Luther  afterwards  visited  the  monastery  of  this  same 
Prior,  on  the  occasion  of  an  official  visitation,  he  found  the 
community  estranged  from  its  head.  He  did  not  at  that  time 
take  any  steps,  but  after  a  few  weeks  he  suddenly  removed 
Michael  Dressel  from  his  office.  In  confidence  he  informed 
Johann  Lang,  rather  cryptically,  that :  "I  did  this  because  I 
hoped  to  rule  there  myself  for  the  half-year."5  Do  the  words 

1 "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  68.     *  June  22, 1516,  ibid.,  p.  42.     3  Ibid.,  p.  43. 

4  Cp.  Luther's  Indulgence  theses,  92  and  93,  where    "  pax,  pax,' 
and  "crux,  crux"  are  repeated  in  the  same  way.    "Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1, 
p.  291.     "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  628. 

5  October  26,  1516,    "  Briefwechsel,"   1,  p.  68  :     "  Fed  ideo,  quod 
sperdbam,  me  ipsum  illic  ad  medium  annum  regnaturum" 


QUICK  DESPATCH   OF  BUSINESS    267 

perhaps  mean  that  he  was  anxious  to  secure  a  victory  for  that 
party  in  the  Order  which  was  devoted  to  himself  and  opposed  to 
Dressel,  who  on  this  hypothesis  was  an  Observantine  ?  His 
action  was  peculiar  from  the  fact  that  his  letter  addressed  to  the 
community  at  Neustadt  and  to  Dressel  himself  gave  no  reason 
for  the  measure  against  the  Prior  other  than  that  the  brothers 
were  unable  to  live  with  him  in  peace  and  agreement ;  the  Prior, 
he  says,  had  always  had  the  best  intentions,  but  it  is  not  enough 
for  a  Superior  to  be  good  and  pious,  "  it  is  also  necessary  that  the 
others  should  be  at  peace  and  in  agreement  with  him  "  ;  when  a 
Superior's  measures  fail  to  establish  concord,  then  he  should 
revoke  them.1  Still  more  unusual  than  such  advice  was  the 
circumstance  that  Luther  would  not  allow  the  Prior  to  make  any 
defence,  and  cut  short  any  excuses  by  his  sudden  action.  In 
another  letter  to  the  monks  he  justified  his  measure  simply  by 
stating  that  there  was  no  peace.  In  short,  the  rebellious  monks 
speedily  got  the  better  of  the  Superior  whom  they  disliked.  The 
ex- Prior,  Luther  tells  him,  must  on  no  account  murmur  because 
he  has  been  judged  without  a  hearing  ("  quia  te  non  atiditum 
iudicaverim  ")  ;  he  himself  (Luther)  was  convinced  of  his  good 
will  and  also  hoped  that  all  the  inmates  of  the  convent  were 
grateful  to  him  for  the  good  intentions  which  he  had  displayed. 
In  the  new  election  ordered  by  the  Rural  Vicar,  Heinrich  Zwetze 
was  chosen  as  Prior.  Of  the  latter  or  how  the  matter  ended 
nothing  more  is  known. 

The  office  of  Rural  Vicar  required  above  all,  that,  when 
making  his  regular  visitation  of  the  religious  houses,  the 
Vicar  should  have  a  personal  interview  with  each  brother, 
hear  what  he  had  to  say,  and  give  him  any  spiritual  direction 
of  which  he  might  stand  in  need.  We  learn  the  following 
of  a  visitation  of  this  kind  which  Luther  made  in  1516  : 
At  the  Gotha  monastery  the  whole  of  the  visitation  occupied 
only  one  hour ;  at  Langensalza  two  hours.  He  informs 
Lang  :  "In  these  places  the  Lord  will  work  without  us  and 
direct  the  spiritual  and  temporal  affairs  in  spite  of  the  devil."2 
He  at  once  proceeded  on  the  same  journey  to  the  house 
at  Nordhausen  and  then  on  to  those  at  Eisleben  and  Magde- 
burg. In  two  days  the  Rural  Vicar  was  back  in  his  beloved 
Wittenberg.  There  is  no  doubt  that  such  summary  treat- 
ment of  his  most  important  duties  was  not  favourable  to 
discipline. 

At  Leitzkau  the  Augustinians  possessed  rights  over  the 
large  fisheries  and  Luther  was  intimate  with  the  local 
Cistercian  Provost.  When  the  Provost,  George  Maskov, 

1  September  25,  1516,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  1,  p.  51. 

2  May  29,  1516,  ibid.,  p.  38. 


268  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

asked  him  how  he  should  behave  towards  a  brother  monk 
who  had  sinned  grievously,  seeing  that  he  himself  was  a  still 
greater  offender,  Luther  replied,  saying,  among  other  things, 
that  he  ought  certainly  to  punish  him,  for,  as  a  rule,  it  was 
necessary  to  exercise  discipline  towards  those  who  are 
better  than  ourselves.  "  We  are  all  children  of  Adam, 
therefore  we  do  the  works  of  Adam."  But  "  our  authority 
is  not  ours,  but  God's."  Perhaps  God  desired  to  help 
that  brother  on  the  road  of  sin,  namely,  through  shame. 
"  It  is  God  Who  does  all  this."1  And  in  another  letter  he 
says  to  the  Provost  :2  "If  many  of  your  subjects  are  on  the 
way  to  moral  ruin,  yet  you  must  not  for  that  reason  disquiet 
them  all.  It  is  better  quietly  to  save  a  few.  .  .  .  Let 
the  cockel  grow  together  with  the  wheat  ...  for  it  is 
better  to  bear  with  the  many  for  the  sake  of  the  few  than 
to  ruin  the  few  on  account  of  the  many."  In  a  mystical 
vein  he  says  :  "  Pray  for  me,  for  my  life  is  daily  drawing 
nearer  to  hell  (i.e.  the  lower  world,  '  inferno  appropinquavit,' 
Ps.  Ixxxvii.  4),  as  I  also  become  worse  and  more  wretched 
day  by  day."3 

Bodily  infirmities  were  then  pressing  hard  upon  him  in 
consequence  of  his  many  labours  and  spiritual  trials,  while 
much  of  his  time  was  swallowed  up  by  his  lectures  which 
were  still  in  progress. 


2.  The  Monk  of  Liberal  Views  and  Independent  Action 

With  regard  to  his  own  life  as  a  religious  and  his  con- 
ception of  his  calling  Luther  was,  at  the  time  of  the  crisis, 
still  far  removed  from  the  position  which  he  took  up  later, 
though  we  find  already  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans 
views  which  eventually  could  not  fail  to  place  him  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  religious  state. 

What  still  bound  him  to  the  religious  life  was,  above  all, 
the  ideal  of  humility,  which  his  mystical  ideas  had  developed. 
He  also  recognised  fully  the  binding  nature  of  his  vows. 
According  to  him  man  cannot  steep  himself  sufficiently  in 

1  May  17,  1517,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  99. 

2  Undated  (1516  ?),  ibid.,  p.  77. 

3  From  the  latter  months  of  1516,  ibid.,  p.  76  :    "  Confiteor  tibi,  quod 
vita   mea   in   dies   appropinquat   inferno,     quia    quotidie   peior  fio   et 
miserior" 


ON   THE   RELIGIOUS   LIFE          269 

his  essential  nothingness  before  the  Eternal  God,  and  vows 
are  an  expression  of  such  submission  to  the  Supreme  Being. 

"  To  love  is  to  hate  and  condemn  oneself,  yea  even  to  wish 
evil  to  oneself."  "  Our  good  is  hidden  so  deeply  that  it  is  con- 
cealed under  its  opposite  ;  thus  life  is  hidden  under  death,  real 
egotism  under  hatred  of  self,  honour  under  shame,  salvation 
under  destruction,  a  kingdom  under  exile,  heaven  under  hell, 
wisdom  under  foolishness,  righteousness  under  sin,  strength 
under  weakness  ;  indeed  all  our  affirmation  of  any  good  is 
concealed  under  its  negation  in  order  that  faith  in  God,  Who  is 
the  negation  of  all,  may  remain  supreme  .  .  .  thus  '  our  life  is 
hidden  with  Christ  in  God  '  (Col.  iii.  3),  i.e.  in  the  negation  of  all 
that  can  be  felt,  possessed  and  apprehended.  .  .  .  That  is  the 
good  which  we  must  desire  for  ourselves,"  he  says  to  his  brother 
monks,  "  then  only  are  we  good  when  we  recognise  the  good  God 
and  our  evil  self."1 

He  says  elsewhere  regarding  vows  :  "  All  things  are,  it  is  true, 
free  to  us,  but  by  means  of  vows  we  can  offer  them  all  up  out  of 
love  ;  when  this  has  once  taken  place,  then  they  are  necessary, 
not  by  their  nature  but  on  account  of  the  vow  which  has  been 
taken  voluntarily.  Then  we  must  be  careful  to  keep  the  vows 
with  the  same  love  with  which  we  took  them  upon  us,  otherwise 
they  are  not  kept  at  all."8  In  many  points  he  goes  further  than 
the  Rule  itself  in  the  mystical  demands  he  makes  upon  the 
members  of  the  Order. 

In  other  respects  Luther's  requirements  not  only  fall 
far  short  of  what  is  necessary,  but  even  the  ordinary  monastic 
duties  fare  badly  at  his  hands.  If  it  is  the  interior  word  which 
is  to  guide  the  various  actions,  and  if  without  the  "  spirit  " 
they  are  nothing,  indeed  would  be  better  left  undone,  then 
what  place  is  left  to  the  common  observance  of  the  monastic 
Rule  and  the  numerous  pious  practices,  prayers  and  acts 
of  virtue  to  which  a  regular  time  and  place  are  assigned  ? 

From  the  standpoint  of  his  pseudo-mystical  perfection 
he  criticises  with  acerbity  the  recitation  of  the  Office  in 
Choir ;  also  the  "  unreasonableness  and  superstition  of 
pious  founders  of  benefices,"  who,  as  it  were,  "  desired  to 
purchase  prayers  "  at  certain  fixed  times.  Founders  of  a 
monastery  ought  not  to  have  prescribed  the  recitation  of 
the  Office  in  Choir  on  their  behalf ;  by  so  doing  they 
wished  to  secure  their  own  salvation  and  well-being  before 
God,  instead  of  making  their  offerings  purely  for  God's 
sake.3  Such  remarks  plainly  show  that  he  was  already  far 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  219  f.  *  Ibid.,  p.  317. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  291. 


270  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

removed  in  spirit  from  a  right  appreciation  of  his  Order. 
He  had  also  expressed  himself  against  the  mendicancy 
practised  by  the  Augustinians,  and  yet  the  Order  was  a 
Mendicant  Order  and  the  collecting  of  alms  one  of  its 
essential  statutes.1 

Nevertheless,  again  and  again  he  speaks  in  lofty  language 
of  the  value  of  the  lowliness  of  the  religious  life.  Now 
especially,  he  writes  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans 
under  the  influence  of  his  mystical  "  theologia  crucis,"  it  is 
a  good  thing  to  be  a  religious,  better  than  during  the  last  two 
centuries.  Why  ?  Because  now  monks  are  no  longer  so 
highly  esteemed  as  formerly,  they  are  hated  by  the  world 
and  looked  upon  as  fools,  and  are  "  persecuted  by  the 
bishops  and  clergy " ;  therefore  the  religious  ought  to 
rejoice  in  their  cross  and  in  their  state  of  humiliation.2 

Whoever  takes  vows  imposes  upon  himself  "  a  new  law  "  out 
of  love  for  God  ;  he  voluntarily  renounces  his  own  freedom  in 
order  to  obey  his  superiors,  who  stand  in  God's  place.  The 
vows  are  for  him  indissoluble  bonds,  but  bonds  of  love.3  "  Who- 
ever wishes  to  enter  the  cloister,"  he  says,4  "  because  he  thinks 
he  cannot  otherwise  be  saved,  ought  not  to  enter.  We  must 
beware  of  exemplifying  the  proverb  :  '  despair  makes  a  monk ' ; 
despair  never  made  a  monk,  but  only  a  devil. 5  We  must  enter 
from  the  motive  of  love,  namely,  because  we  perceive  the  weight 
of  our  sins  and  are  desirous  of  offering  our  Lord  something  great 
out  of  love  ;  for  this  reason  we  sacrifice  to  Him  our  freedom, 
assume  the  dress  of  a  fool,  and  submit  to  the  performance  of 
lowly  offices." 

His  complaints  are  very  serious  and  certainly  somewhat 
prejudiced,  owing  partly  to  his  new  theology,  partly  to  his  wrong 
perception  of  the  facts. 

"  Whoever  keeps  his  vows  with  repugnance  is  behaving  sacri- 
legiously."6 Even  he  who  is  animated  by  the  best  of  motives 
scarcely  acts  from  perfect  love,  but  when  this  is  entirely  absent, 
he  says,  "  we  sin  even  in  our  good  works."7  Many  who  fulfil 
their  religious  duties  merely  from  routine  and  with  indolence 
"  are  apostates  though  they  do  not  appear  to  be  such,"  and  in  his 
excessive  zeal  he  continues  :  "  the  religious  in  the  Church  to-day 
are  held  captive  under  a  Mosaic  bondage,  and  together  with  them 
the  clergy  and  the  laity  because  they  cling  to  the  doctrines  of 
men  ('  doctrines  hominum');  we  all  believe  that  without  these 

1  See  above,  p.  71.  2  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  318. 

8  Ibid.  *  Ibid. 

6  Of  himself  he  says  at  a  later  date  :    I  went  into  the  convent 
"  because  I  despaired  of  myself."     (See  above,  p.  4.) 
•  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  317.  7  Ibid.,  p.  123. 


ON  HIS   FELLOW-MONKS  271 

there  is  no  salvation,  but  that  with  these  salvation  is  assured 
without  any  further  effort  on  our  part."1 

On  the  same  occasion  he  allows  himself  to  be  carried  away 
from  the  subject  of  monasticism  to  the  complaints  regarding  the 
too  frequent  Feasts  and  Fasts  and  the  formalism  pervading  the 
whole  life  of  the  Church,  to  which  we  referred  on  page  227.  Re- 
turning to  the  monks,  he  declares  that  he  finds  the  interior  man 
so  greatly  lacking  in  them  that  (without  considering  the  many 
exceptions)  they  were  the  cause  of  the  hostile  attitude  which  the 
world  assumed  towards  them.  "  Instead  of  rejoicing  in  shame, 
they  are  only  monks  in  appearance  ;  but  I  know  that  if  they 
possessed  love  they  would  be  the  happiest  of  men,  happier  than 
the  old  hermits,  because  they  are  daily  exposed  to  the  cross 
and  contempt.  But  to-day  there  is  no  class  of  men  more 
presumptuous  than  they."2 

At  the  same  time,  however,  he  blames  the  religious  who  are 
too  zealous  for  his  liking,  saying  :  "  they  are  desirous  of  imitating 
the  works  of  the  Saints  and  are  proud  of  their  Founders  and 
Fathers  ;  but  this  is  merely  trumpery,  because  they  wish  to  do  the 
same  great  works  themselves  and  yet  neglect  the  spirit ;  they  are 
like  the  Thomists  and  Scotists  and  the  other  sects,  who  defend 
the  writings  and  words  of  their  pet  authors  without  cultivating 
the  spirit,  yea  rather  stifling  it  ...  but  they  are  hypocrites,  as 
Saints  they  are  not  holy,  as  righteous  they  are  anything  but 
righteous,  and,  while  ostensibly  performing  good  works,  they,  in 
fact,  do  nothing."3 

And  what  sort  of  works  do  the  religious  perform  ?  "In  the 
same  way  that  nowadays  all  workmen  are  as  lazy  as  though  they 
were  asleep  all  day,  so  religious  and  priests  sleep  at  their  prayer 
from  laziness,  both  spiritually  and  corporally ;  they  do  every- 
thing with  the  utmost  indolence  .  .  .  this  fault  is  so  wide- 
spread that  there  is  hardly  one  who  is  free  from  it."*  "  Now," 
he  exclaims  passionately,  speaking  of  the  monks  and  clergy, 
"  almost  all  follow  their  vocation  against  their  will  and  with- 
out any  love  for  it."  "  How  many  there  are  who  would  gladly 
let  everything  go,  ceremonies,  prayers,  rules  and  all,  if  the  Pope 
would  only  dispense  from  them,  as  indeed  he  could."  "  We 
ought  to  perform  these  things  willingly  and  gladly,  not  from  fear 
of  remorse  of  conscience,  or  of  punishment,  or  from  the  hope  of 
reward  and  honour.  But  supposing  it  were  left  free  to  each  one 
to  fast,  pray,  obey,  go  to  church,  etc.,  I  believe  that  in  one  year 
everything  would  be  at  an  end,  all  the  churches  empty  and  the 
altars  forsaken."5  He  does  not  remember  that  shortly  before  he 
had  been  complaining  that  outward  observances  were  taken  too 
seriously  so  that  they  were  looked  upon  as  necessary  means  of 
salvation  ("  sine  his  non  esse  salutem  "),  that  "  the  whole  of  re- 
ligion was  made  to  consist  in  their  fulfilment  to  the  neglect  of  the 
actual  commandments  of  God,  of  faith  and  love,"  and  that  the 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  317.  *  Ibid.,  p.  318. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  165  f.  *  Ibid.,  p.  286. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  320. 


272  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

"  lower  classes  observe  them  under  the  impression  that  their 
eternal  salvation  depends  upon  them."1  These  complaints,  too, 
he  had  redoubled  when  speaking  of  the  religious. 

According  to  the  testimony  of  the  religious  and  theological 
literature  of  that  day,  the  monastic  Orders  were  better  in- 
structed in  the  meaning  and  importance  of  outward  observances 
than  Luther  here  assumes.  Expounders  of  the  Rules  and 
ascetical  writers  speak  an  altogether  different  language.  In  the 
monasteries  the  distinction  between  the  observances  which  were 
enjoined  under  pain  of  grievous  sin  and  were,  therefore,  under  no 
circumstances  to  be  omitted,  and  such  as  were  binding  under  the 
Rule  but  not  under  pain  of  sin,  was  well  understood,  and  a  third 
category  was  allowed,  viz.  such  as  were  undertaken  voluntarily, 
for  instance,  the  construction  of  churches,  or  their  adornment. 
It  was  also  known,  and  that  not  only  in  religious  houses — for  the 
popular  manuals  of  that  day  set  it  forth  clearly — that  for  an 
action  to  be  good  the  motive  of  perfect  love,  which  Luther 
represented  as  indispensable,2  was  not  requisite,  but  that  other 
religious  motives,  such  as  the  fear  of  punishment  of  sin,  were 
sufficient  though  it  was,  indeed,  desirable  to  rise  to  a  higher 
level.  Above  all,  it  was  well  known  that  the  disinclination 
towards  what  is  good,  which  springs  from  man's  sensual  nature 
like  the  temptation  to  indolence  which  still  held  sway  even  in 
religious,  are  not  sin  but  may  be  made  the  subject  of  a 
meritorious  struggle. 

The  formalism  which  it  is  true  was  widely  prevalent  in  the 
religious  life  at  that  time  was  due  not  so  much  to  a  faulty  con- 
ception of  the  religious  state  as  to  the  inadequate  fulfilment  of  its 
obligations  and  its  ideals.  This  deterioration  was  not  likely 
to  be  remedied  by  the  application  of  the  mistaken  idea  which 
Luther  advocated,  namely,  that  not  the  slightest  trace  of  human 
weakness  must  be  allowed  to  enter  into  the  performance  of  good 
works,  otherwise  they  became  utterly  worthless.  His  stipulation 
that  everything  must  be  done  from  the  highest  "  spiritus  internus," 
could  only  be  the  result  of  his  extravagant  mysticism.  The 
Rules  of  no  Order,  not  even  that  of  the  Augustinians,  went  so 
far  as  this.  Yet  the  Rule  of  Luther's  Augustinian  Congregation 
did  not  seek  a  merely  outward,  Pharisaical  carrying  out  of  its 
regulations,  but  a  life  where  the  duties  of  the  religious  state  were 
performed  in  accordance  with  the  inward  spirit  of  the  Order. 

Luther's  master,  the  Augustinian  Johann  Paltz,  emphasises 
this  spirit  very  strongly  in  the  instructions  which  he  issued  for 
the  preservation  of  the  true  ideals  of  the  Order. 

"  Love,"  he  there  says,  "  pays  more  heed  to  the  inward  than 
to  the  outward,  but  the  spirit  of  the  world  mocks  at  what  is 
inward  and  sets  great  value  on  what  is  outward."  He  opposed 
the  principles  tending  to  formalism  and  the  deterioration  of 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  316  f. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  317  :   "  Curandum,  ut  \vota]  eadem  charitate  solvantur,  qua 
aunt  promissa,  sine  qua  solvi  non  possunt.  .  .  .  Ideo  apostates  sunt 
rnulti,  et  non  videntur." 


the  religious  life  and  shows  himself  to  be  imbued  with  a  true  and 
deep  appreciation  of  his  profession.  He  entitles  that  portion 
of  his  treatise  directed  against  deviations  from  the  Rule  : 
"  Concerning  the  wild  beasts  who  lay  waste  the  religious  life." 
He  writes  with  so  much  feeling  and  in  so  vivid  a  manner  that  the 
reader  of  to-day  almost  fancies  that  he  must  have  foreseen  the 
approaching  storm  and  the  destruction  of  his  Congregation. 
He  scourges  those  who  allow  themselves  to  be  led  away  by  the 
appearance  of  what  is  good  ("sub  specie  boni  "),  who  introduce 
new  roads  to  perfection  according  to  their  own  ideas  and  require 
men  to  do  what  lies  beyond  them  ;  they  thus  endanger  the 
carrying  out  of  the  ordinary  good  works  and  practices  of  the 
religious  life  which  all  were  able  to  perform.  This,  he  says,  was  a 
temptation  of  the  enemy  from  the  beginning,  who  seduced  such 
innovators  to  rely  upon  their  own  ideas  and  to  consider  them- 
selves alone  as  good,  wise  and  enlightened.  "  If  the  Babylonians 
[this  is  the  name  he  gives  to  the  instigators  of  such  disturb- 
ances] force  their  way  into  the  Order  and  if  they  obtain  the  upper 
hand,  that  will  be  the  end  of  discipline,  or  at  least  it  will  be  under- 
mined ;  but  if  the  spirits  of  Jerusalem  [the  city  of  Peace]  retain 
the  mastery,  then  the  religious  life  will  nourish  and  its  develop- 
ment will  not  be  hindered  by  certain  defects  which  are,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  unavoidable  in  this  life."  These  words  are  found 
in  a  book  written  by  the  clear-sighted  and  zealous  Augustinian 
and  published  at  Erfurt  the  year  before  Luther  begged  for 
admittance  at  the  gate  of  the  Augustinian  monastery  of  that 
town.1  The  monk  of  liberal  views  was  already  on  the  point 
of  becoming  to  his  Order  one  of  the  "  Babylonians  "  above 
referred  to. 

Luther  wished  to  introduce  into  the  religious  life  the  confused 
ideas  begotten  of  his  mysticism,  at  the  expense  of  the  observances 
which  all  were  bound  to  fulfil.  In  this  connection  it  should  not 
be  forgotten  that  Tauler,  the  teacher  whom  Luther  so  much 
admired,  had  shown  that  religious  obedience  if  exercised  in  the 
right  spirit  was  capable,  by  the  observance  of  the  Rule  in  small 
matters,  of  leading  to  greater  perfection  than  could  be  arrived  at 
by  the  performance  of  great  works  or  by  contemplation  when 
these  were  self-chosen.  Luther  must  have  been  acquainted  with 
the  instructive  story  which  Tauler  relates  and  which  was  often 
told  in  conventual  houses,  of  the  Child  Jesus  and  the  nun.  The 
Divine  Child  appears  to  her  during  her  meditation,  but,  on  being 
suddenly  called  away  to  perform  some  allotted  task  and  obeying 
the  summons,  as  a  reward  she  finds  on  her  return  the  Divine 
Child  wearing  a  still  more  benign  and  friendly  countenance,  and 
her  visitor  is  also  at  pains  to  point  out  to  her  that  the  humble 
task  for  which  she  had  left  Him,  pleases  Him  better  than  the 
meditation  in  which  she  had  been  engaged  when  He  first  appeared 
to  her.2 

1  "  Celifodina,"  Supplementum,   Erfordise,  1504,  fol.  L  3  seq.,  M. 
1'  aeq. 

2  Cp.  Braun,  "  Concupiscenz,"  p.  283. 

i. — T 


274  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Teachers  of  Tauler's  stamp  inculcated  on  monks  and  laymen 
alike  the  highest  esteem  for  small  and  insignificant  tasks  when 
performed  in  compliance  with  obedience  to  the  duties  of  one's  state, 
whatever  it  might  be.  It  was  unfair  to  the  religious  life  and  at 
the  same  time  to  true  Christian  mysticism  when  Luther  at  a  later 
date,  after  his  estrangement  from  the  Order,  in  emphasising  the 
works  which  please  God  in  the  secular  life,  saw  fit  to  speak  as 
though  this  view  had  hitherto  been  unknown. 

Tauler  had  summed  up  the  doctrine  already  well  known  in 
earlier  ages  in  the  beautiful  words  :  "  When  the  most  trivial 
work  is  performed  in  real  and  simple  obedience,  such  a  work  of 
an  obedient  man  is  nobler  and  better  and  more  pleasing  to  God 
and  is  more  profitable  and  meritorious  than  all  the  great  works 
which  he  may  do  here  below  of  his  own  choice."1  Every  artisan 
and  peasant  is  able,  according  to  Tauler,  to  serve  God  in  perfect 
love  in  his  humble  calling  ;  he  need  not  neglect  his  work  to  tread 
the  paths  of  sublime  charity  and  lofty  prayer.  The  mystic 
illustrates  this  also  by  a  little  anecdote  :  "I  know  one  who  is  a 
very  great  friend  of  God  and  who  has  been  all  his  days  a  farm- 
labourer,  for  more  than  two  score  years.  He  once  asked  our  Lord 
whether  he  should  leave  his  calling  and  go  and  sit  in  the  churches. 
But  the  Lord  said  No,  and  that  he  was  to  earn  his  bread  with  the 
sweat  of  his  brow  and  thus  honour  His  true  and  noble  Blood. 
Every  man  must  choose  some  suitable  time  by  day  or  by  night 
during  which  he  may  go  to  the  root  of  things,  each  one  as  best 
he  can."2 

Luther,  during  the  time  of  his  crisis,  was  not  only  a  monk 
of  dangerously  wide  views,  but  he  was  also  inclined  to  take 
liberties  in  practice. 

There  is  a  great  dearth  of  information  with  regard  to  the 
way  in  which  Luther  practised  at  that  time  the  virtues  of 
the  religious  life,  and  from  his  own  statements  we  do  not 
learn  much.  He  complains,  in  1516,  to  his  friend  Leiffer, 
the  Erfurt  Augustinian  :  "I  am  sure  and  know  from  my 
own  experience,  from  yours  too,  and,  in  fact,  from  the 
general  experience  of  all  whom  I  have  seen  troubled,  that 
it  is  merely  the  false  wisdom  of  our  own  ideas  which  is  the 
origin  and  root  of  our  disquietude.  For  our  eye  is  evil, 
and,  to  speak  only  of  myself,  into  what  painful  misery  has 
it  brought  me  and  still  continues  to  bring  me."3 

Luther,  whose  capacity  for  work  was  enormous,  flung 
himself  into  the  employments  which  pressed  upon  him. 
He  reserved  little  time  for  self-examination  and  for  culti- 
vating his  spiritual  life.  In  addition  to  his  lectures,  his 

1  Braun,  "  Concupiscenz,"  p.  283.  2  Ibid. 

3  April  15,  1516,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  31. 


CEASELESS   ROUND   OF   WORK     275 

studies,  the  direction  of  the  younger  monks,  his  sermons, 
whether  at  the  monastery  or  in  the  parish  church,  and  the 
heavy  correspondence  which  devolved  on  him  as  Vicar,  he 
also  undertook  various  other  voluntary  labours.  Frequently 
he  had  several  sermons  to  preach  on  the  same  day,  and 
with  his  correspondence  he  was  scarcely  able  to  cope.  This 
was  merely  a  prelude  to  what  was  to  come.  During  the 
first  years  after  his  public  apostasy  he  himself  kept  four 
printing  presses  at  work,  and  besides  this  had  a  vast  amount 
of  other  business  to  attend  to.  His  powers  of  work  were 
indeed  amazing. 

In  1516  in  a  letter  he  tells  his  friend  Lang  of  his  engage- 
ments. "  I  really  ought  to  have  two  secretaries  or  chan- 
cellors. I  do  hardly  anything  all  day  but  write  letters. 
...  I  am  at  the  same  time  preacher  to  the  monastery, 
have  to  preach  in  the  refectory  and  am  even  expected  to 
preach  daily  in  the  parish  church.  I  am  Regent  of  the 
Studium  [i.e.  of  the  younger  monks]  and  Vicar,  that  is  to 
say  Prior  eleven  times  over  [i.e.  of  the  eleven  houses  under 
his  supervision] ;  I  have  to  provide  for  the  delivery  of  fish 
from  the  Leitzkau  pond  and  to  manage  the  litigation  of  the 
Herzberg  fellows  [the  monks]  at  Torgau  ;  I  am  lecturing 
on  Paul,  compiling  an  exposition  of  the  Psalter  and,  as  I 
said  before,  writing  letters  most  of  the  time." 

"  It  is  seldom,"  he  adds,  "  that  I  have  time  for  the 
recitation  of  the  Divine  Office  or  to  celebrate  [Mass],  and 
then,  too,  I  have  my  peculiar  temptations  from  the  flesh, 
the  world  and  the  devil."1 

Thus  at  the  time  he  was  constantly  omitting  Office  in 
Choir,  the  Breviary  and  the  celebration  of  Mass,  or  per- 
forming these  sacred  duties  in  the  greatest  haste  in  order 
to  get  back  to  his  business.  We  must  dwell  a  little  on  this 
confession,  as  it  represents  the  only  definite  information  we 
have  with  regard  to  his  spiritual  life.  If,  as  he  says,  he  had 
strong  temptations  to  bewail,  it  should  have  been  his  first 
care  to  strengthen  his  soul  by  spiritual  exercises  and  to 
implore  God's  assistance  in  the  Holy  Mass  and  by  diligence 
in  Choir.  Daily  celebration  of  Mass  had  been  earnestly 
recommended  by  teachers  of  the  spiritual  life  to  all  priests, 
more  particularly  to  those  belonging  to  religious  Orders. 
The  punctual  recitation  of  the  canonical  Hours,  i.e.  of  the 
1  October  26,  1516,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  66  f. 


276  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Breviary,  was  enjoined  as  a  most  serious  duty  not  merely 
by  the  laws  of  the  Church,  but  also  by  the  constitutions  of 
the  Augustine  Congregation.  The  latter  declared  that  no 
excuse  could  be  alleged  for  the  omission,  and  that  whoever 
neglected  the  canonical  Hours  was  to  be  considered  as  a 
schismatic.  It  is  incomprehensible  how  Luther  could 
dispense  himself  from  both  these  obligations  by  alleging 
his  want  of  time  as,  according  to  his  Rule,  spiritual  exercises, 
especially  in  the  case  of  a  Superior,  took  precedence  of  all 
other  duties,  and  it  was  for  him  to  give  an  example  to  others 
in  the  punctual  performance  of  the  same. 

There  was  probably  another  reason  for  his  omitting  to 
celebrate  Mass. 

He  felt  a  repugnance  for  the  Holy  Sacrifice,  perhaps  on 
account  of  his  frequent  fits  of  anxiety.  He  says,  at  a  later 
date,  that  he  never  took  pleasure  in  saying  Mass  when  a 
monk  ;  this  statement,  however,  cannot  be  taken  to  in- 
clude the  very  earliest  period  of  his  priestly  life,  when  the 
good  effects  of  his  novitiate  were  still  apparent,  for  one 
reason  because  this  would  not  agree  with  the  enthusiasm 
of  his  letter  of  invitation  to  his  first  Mass. 

Religious  services  generally,  he  says  in  1515-16  to  the  young 
monks,  with  a  boldness  which  he  takes  little  pains  to  conceal, 
"  are  in  fact  to-day  more  a  hindrance  than  a  help  "  to  true  piety. 
Speaking  of  the  manner  of  their  performance  he  says  with  mani- 
fest exaggeration,  that  it  is  such  as  to  be  no  longer  prayer.  "  We 
only  insult  God  more  when  we  recite  them.  .  .  .  We  acquire 
a  false  security  of  conscience  as  though  we  had  really  prayed, 
and  that  is  a  terrible  danger  I"1  Then  he  goes  on  to  explain 
"  Almost  all  follow  their  calling  at  the  present  day  with  distaste 
and  without  love,  and  those  who  are  zealous  place  their  trust 
in  it  and  merely  crucify  their  conscience."  He  speaks  of  the 
"  superstitious  exercises  of  piety  "  which  are  performed  from 
gross  ignorance,  and  sets  up  as  the  ideal,  that  each  one  should  be 
at  liberty  to  decide  what  he  will  undertake  in  the  way  of  priestly 
or  monastic  observances,  among  which  he  enumerates  expressly 
"  celibacy,  the  tonsure,  the  habit  and  the  recitation  of  the 
Breviary."2  We  see  from  this  that  he  was  not  much  attached 
even  to  the  actual  obligations  of  his  profession,  and  we  may 
fairly  surmise  that  such  a  disposition  had  not  come  upon  him 
suddenly;  these  were  rather  the  moral  accompaniments  of  the 
change  in  his  theological  views  and  really  date  from  an  earlier 
period.  We  can  also  recognise  in  them  the  practical  results  of 
his  strong  opposition  to  the  Observantines  of  the  Order,  which 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  288.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  319,  320. 


ON  THE   DIVINE   OFFICE          277 

grew  into  an  antagonism  to  all  zeal  in  the  religious  life  and  in  the 
service  of  God,  and  even  to  the  observance  of  the  duties,  great 
or  small,  of  one's  state  of  life. 

With  his  mystical  idealism  he  demands,  on  the  other  hand, 
what  is  contrary  to  reason  and  impossible  of  attainment.  Prayer, 
according  to  him,  if  rightly  performed,  is  the  "most  strenuous 
work  and  calls  for  the  greatest  energy  "  ;  "  the  spirit  must  be 
raised  to  God  by  the  employment  of  constant  violence  "  ;  this 
must  be  done  "with  fear  and  trembling,"  because  the  biblical 
precept  says  :  "  work  out  your  salvation  with  fear  and  trem- 
bling "  ;  in  short,  it  is,  he  declares,  "  the  most  difficult  and  most 
tedious  affair"  ("  difficillima  et  tcediosissima").1  Only  then  is 
it  not  so  "  when  the  Spirit  of  God  takes  us  beneath  His  wings  and 
carries  us,  or  when  misfortune  forces  us  to  pray  from  our  hearts." 

He  can  describe  graphically  the  lukewarmness  and  distractions 
which  accompany  the  recitation  of  the  Divine  Office,  and  can 
do  so  from  experience  if  we  may  trust  what  he  says  in  1535  of 
himself  :  "I  have  in  my  day  spent  much  time  in  the  recitation 
of  the  canonical  Hours,  and  often  the  Psalm  or  Hour  was  ended 
before  I  knew  whether  I  was  at  the  beginning  or  in  the  middle 
of  it."2 

The  ironical  description  which  he  gives  in  1516  of  those  who 
pray  with  a  good  intention  runs  as  follows  :3  "  They  form  their 
good  intention  and  make  a  virtue  of  necessity.  But  the  devil 
laughs  at  them  behind  their  backs  and  says  :  '  put  on  your  best 
clothes,  Kitty,  we  are  going  to  have  company.'*  They  get  up 
and  go  into  the  choir  and  say  to  themselves  [under  the  impression 
that  they  are  doing  something  praiseworthy] :  '  See,  little  owl, 
how  fine  you  are,  surely  you  are  growing  peacock's  feathers  !  '* 
But  I  know  you  are  like  the  ass  in  the  fable,  otherwise  I  should 
have  taken  you  for  lions,  you  roar  so  ;  but  though  you  have  got 
into  a  lion's  skin,  I  know  you  by  your  ears  !  Soon,  whilst  they 
are  praying,  weariness  comes  over  them,  they  count  up  the  pages 
still  to  be  gone  through,  and  look  at  the  number  of  verses  to  see 
if  they  are  nearly  at  the  end.  Then  they  console  themselves 
[for  their  tepidity]  with  their  Scotus,  who  teaches  that  a  virtual 
intention  suffices  and  an  actual  intention  is  unnecessary.  But 
the  devil  says  to  them  :  '  excellent,  quite  right,  be  at  peace  and 
secure  !  '  Thus  we,  become,"  so  the  amusing  description  con- 
cludes, "  a  laughing-stock  to  our  enemy." 

He  thinks  he  has  found  a  way  out  of  the  dualism  which  formerly 
tormented  him,  and  has  become  more  independent.  But  what 
has  he  found  to  replace  it  ?  Merely  fallacies,  the  inadequacy 
and  inconsistency  of  which  are  hidden  from  him  by  his  egotism 
and  self-deception.  "  This  good  intention,"  he  says  of  the  teaching 
of  Scotus — which  was  perfectly  correct,  though  liable  to  be 
misunderstood,  as  it  certainly  was  by  Luther — "  is  not  so  easy 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  290.  2  Erl.  ed.,  23,  p.  222. 

8  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  321. 

4  These  words  are  given  in  German  in  the  Latin  text. 

5  Also  in  German. 


278  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

and  under  our  own  control,  as  Scotus  would  have  it  to  our  un- 
doing ;  as  though  we  possessed  free  will  to  make  good  intentions 
whenever  we  wish  !  That  is  a  very  dangerous  and  widespread 
fallacy,  which  leads  us  to  carelessness  and  to  snore  in  false 
security."  We  must,  on  the  contrary,  he  continues,  prostrate 
in  our  cell,  implore  this  intention  of  God's  mercy  with  all  our 
might  and  wait  for  it,  instead  of  presumptuously  producing  it 
from  within  ourselves  ;  and  in  the  same  way  after  doing  any 
good  works  we  must  not  examine  whether  we  have  acted  wickedly 
by  deed  or  omission  ("  neque  quid  mail  fecimus  aut  omisimus  "), 
but  with  what  interior  fervour  and  gladness  of  heart  we  have 
performed  the  action.1 

As  the  recitation  of  the  Hours  in  the  monastery  was  one  of  the 
duties  of  the  day  in  the  same  way  as  the  recitation  of  the  Breviary 
and  Office  in  Choir  is  to-day,  i.e.  an  obligation  which  expired 
when  the  day  was  over,  it  is  rather  surprising  to  hear  it  said  of 
Luther  that,  at  a  later  period,  "  after  the  rise  of  the  Evangel 
[i.e.  actually  during  his  conflict  with  the  Church],  he  frequently 
shut  himself  up  in  his  cell  at  the  end  of  the  week  and  recited, 
fasting,  all  the  prayers  he  had  omitted,  until  his  head  swam  and 
he  became  for  weeks  incapable  of  working  or  hearing."  This 
strange  tale  about  Luther  reads  rather  differently  in  Melanch- 
thon's  version  which  he  reports  having  had  from  Luther  himself  : 
"  At  the  commencement  it  was  Luther's  custom  on  the  days  on 
which  he  was  not  obliged  to  preach  to  spend  a  whole  day  in 
repeating  the  Hours  seven  times  over  [i.e.  for  the  whole  week], 
getting  up  at  2  a.m.  for  that  purpose.  But  then  Amsdorf  said 
to  him  :  '  If  it  is  a  sin  to  omit  the  Breviary,  then  you  sinned 
when  you  omitted  it.  But  if  it  is  not  a  sin,  then  why  torment 
yourself  now  ?  '  Then  when  his  work  increased  still  more  he 
threw  away  the  Breviary."2  The  latter  statement  may  indeed 
be  true,  as  Luther  himself  says  in  his  Table-Talk  :  "  Our  Lord 
God  tore  me  away  by  force  '  ab  horis  canonicis  an.  1520  '  [?] 
when  I  was  already  writing  much."  In  this  same  passage  he 
again  mentions  how  he  recited  the  whole  of  the  Office  for  the 
seven  days  of  the  week  on  the  Saturday  and  adds  the  historic 
comment,  that,  owing  to  his  fatigue  from  the  Saturday  fast  and 
consequent  sleeplessness,  they  had  been  obliged  to  dose  him  with 
"Dr.  Esch's  haustum  soporiferum."3  It  is  therefore  quite 
possible  that  his  statements  as  to  the  circumstances  under  which 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  321  f. 

2  "  Zeitschr.   fur  Kirchengesch.,"   ed.   Brieger,   4,    1886,  p.  330  in 
the  Dicta  Melanchthoniana,  given  by  O.  Waltz.     Cp.  Mathesius,  "  Tisch- 
reden "    (Kroker),  p.   155,   where  Luther  says,   in  June,  1540:     "At 
the  time  when  I  was  a  monk  I  was  so  much  occupied  in  lecturing,  writing, 
singing,  etc.,  that  owing  to  my  work  I  was  unable  to  recite  the  canonical 
Hours.    Therefore  on  Saturday  I  made  up  for  what  I  had  missed  during 
the  six  days  of  the  week,  taking  no  meals  and  praying  the  whole  day, 
but,  nevertheless,  I  did  not  trouble  about  the  sense  of  the  words. 
Thus  were  we  poor  people  tormented  by  the  decrees  of  the  Popes." 

3  Schlaginhaufen,     "  Aufzeichnungen,"    p.    6.     Cp.     "  Coll.,"    ed. 
Bindseil,  1,  p.  67,  and  "  Tischreden/'  ed.  Forstemann,  3,  p.  236. 


HIS   OUTWARD   APPEARANCE      279 

he  dispensed  himself  from  the  Breviary  may  contain  some  truth ; 
all  the  facts  point  to  the  violent  though  confused  struggle  going 
on  in  the  young  Monk's  mind. 

Yet  Luther  speaks  ably  enough  in  1517  of  the  urgent  necessity 
of  spiritual  exercises,  more  particularly  meditation  on  the 
Scriptures,  to  which  the  recitation  of  the  Office  in  Choir  was  an 
introduction  :  "  As  we  are  attacked  by  countless  distractions 
from  without,  impeded  by  cares  and  engrossed  by  business,  and  as 
all  this  leads  us  away  from  purity  of  heart,  only  one  remedy 
remains  for  us,  viz.  with  great  zeal  to  '  exhort  each  other  ' 
(Heb.  iii.  13),  rouse  our  slumbering  spirit  by  the  Word  of  God, 
reading  the  same  continually,  and  hearing  it  as  the  Apostle 
exhorts."  Not  long  after  he  is,  however,  compelled  to  write  : 
"  I  know  right  well  that  I  do  not  live  in  accordance  with  my 
teaching."1 

The  exertions  which  his  feverish  activity  entailed  avenged 
themselves  on  his  health.  He  became  so  thin  that  one  could 
count  his  ribs,  as  the  saying  is.  His  incessant  inward 
anxieties  also  did  their  part  in  undermining  his  con- 
stitution. 

The  outward  appearance  of  the  Monk  was  specially 
remarkable  on  account  of  the  brilliancy  of  his  deep-set 
eyes,  to  which  Pollich,  his  professor  at  the  University  of 
Wittenberg,  had  already  drawn  attention  (p.  86).  The 
impression  which  this  remarkable  look,  which  always 
remained  with  him,  made  on  others,  was  very  varied.  His 
subsequent  friends  and  followers  found  in  his  eyes  something 
grand  and  noble,  something  of  the  eagle,  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  some  remarks  made  by  his  opponents  on  the  uncanny 
effect  of  his  magic  glance  -will  be  mentioned  later.  Anger 
intensified  this  look,  and  the  strange  power  which  Luther 
exerted  over  those  who  opposed  him,  drew  many  under  the 
spell  of  his  influence  and  worked  upon  them  like  a  kind  of 
suggestion.2 

Many  remarked  with  concern  on  the  youthful  Luther's 
too  great  self-sufficiency. 

His  then  pupil  Johann  Oldecop  describes  him  as  "  a  man 
of  sense,"  but  "  proud  by  nature."  "  He  began  to  be  still 
more  haughty,"  Oldecop  observes,  when  speaking  of  the 

1  "  Scio  quod  non  vivo  quce  doceo."     To  Bishop  Adolf  of  Merseburg, 
February  4,  1520,  "  Briefwechsel,"  2,  p.  312. 

2  Melanchthon  said  on  one  occasion,  according  to  Waltz  (see  above, 
p.  278,  n.  2),  p.  326  :   "  Leo  habet  oculos  xa-poirous  (bright-eyed),  Lutheri 
oculi  sunt  xapo7i-ot,  et  hdbebant  leonem  in  ascendente   (probably  "  habe- 
bat,"  viz.  Luther  in  his  Horoscope).    Et  tales  plerumque  sunt  ingeniosi  .  .  . 
They  were  brown  eyes,  "  circuit  circulus  gilvus" 


280  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

incipient  schism.1  He  will  have  it  that  at  the  University 
Luther  had  always  shown  himself  quarrelsome  and  dis- 
putatious. Oldecop  could  never  forget  that  Luther,  his 
professor,  never  held  a  disputation  which  did  not  end  in 
strife  and  quarrels.2  Luther's  close  connection  with  Johann 
Lang,  the  Augustinian  and  rather  free-thinking  Humanist, 
was  also  remarked  upon,  he  says.  We  know  from  other 
sources  that  Lang  encouraged  Luther  in  his  peculiar  ideas, 
especially  in  his  mysticism  and  in  his  contempt  for  the 
theology  of  the  schools. 

3.  Luther's  Ultra-Spiritualism  and  calls  for  Reform.     Is  Self- 
improvement  possible  ?    Penance 

It  is  clear  from  the  above,  that  the  passionate  zeal  for 
reform  which  inspired  the  Augustinian  proceeded  chiefly 
from  his  pseudo-mysticism.  It  would,  however,  be  incorrect 
to  attribute  all  this  zeal  simply  to  mysticism,  but  neither 
would  it  be  in  accordance  with  the  facts  of  history  were  we 
to  deny  the  connection  between  his  repeated  complaints 
and  calls  for  reform  and  his  spiritualistic  ideas. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  listen  here  to  what  the  youthful 
Luther  had  to  say  of  the  reforming  notions  which  already 
inspired  him,  for  it  opens  up  a  wide  horizon  against  which 
his  psychology  stands  out  in  clear  relief.  Plans  so  far- 
reaching  can  only  have  been  the  result  of  the  exaggerated 
and  one-sided  spiritualistic  point  of  view,  from  which  he 
regarded  the  perversity  of  the  world  at  large.  The  following 
passages  show  what  were  the  motives  which  urged  him  on. 
He  declared  it  to  be  the  duty  of  ecclesiastical  superiors  to 
showr  more  indulgence  to  those  who  scorn  their  position  and 
"  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  Church,"  and  this  from 
the  motive  of  mystical  resignation  ;  theologians  ought  to 
teach,  in  place  of  their  traditional  science,  how  we  are 
"  humbly  to  sigh  after  grace  "  ;  philosophy  must  for  the 
future  be  silent  because  it  is  nothing  but  "  the  wisdom  of 

1  Job.    Oldecop's    "  Chronik "    (ed.    K.    Euling,    Tubingen,    1891), 
pp.  36,  49.     He  says  of  Luther's  friend  Lang,  whose  lecture  on  the 
Epistle  to  Titus  he  had  heard  :  "  dat  he  ein  hoifferdich  monnik  was 
und  let  sik  vele  bedunken,"  i.e.  that  he  was  a  proud  monk  thinking  not 
a  little  of  himself. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  40.    P.  17,  of  the  Erfurt  days  :  He  spoke  against  everyone 
with  a  strange  audacity  and  would  give  way  to  no  one.    P.  28  :  Martin 
was  always  wanting  to  be  in  the  right  and  liked  to  pick  a  quarrel. 


AVERSION  TO   PHILOSOPHY       281 

the  flesh  "  ;  lay  authorities,  moreover,  who  now  begin  to 
see  through  our  wickedness,  ought  to  seize  upon  the  tem- 
poralities of  the  Church  in  order  that  she  may  be  set  free 
to  devote  herself  entirely  to  the  interior  Christian  life. 
Luther's  view  of  the  position  and  actual  character  of  the 
worldly  powers  at  that  time  was  absolutely  untrue  to  life, 
and  one  that  could  have  been  cherished  only  by  a  mystic 
looking  out  on  the  world  from  the  narrow  walls  of  his  cell. 
A  strange  self-sufficiency,  of  which  he  himself  appears  to 
have  been  utterly  unaware,  and  which  is  therefore  all  the 
more  curious,  was  at  the  root  of  these  ideas. 

Such  a  tone  unmistakably  pervades  the  projects  of  reform 
expressed  not  only  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans,  but 
also  in  his  exposition  of  the  Psalms  ;  but  a  comparison  of 
these  two  works  shows  the  increased  stress  which  Luther 
lays  upon  his  own  opinion  in  the  later  work,  and  the  still 
greater  inconsideration  with  which  he  rejects  everything 
which  clashes  with  his  views,  a  fact  which  proves  that  Luther 
was  progressing.  In  his  Commentary  on  Romans  he  appeals 
formally  to  the  "  apostolic  authority "  of  his  Doctor's 
degree,  when  giving  vent  to  the  most  unheard-of  vitupera- 
tion of  the  highest  powers,  ecclesiastical  and  lay.  He 
declares  it  to  be  his  duty  to  reprove  what  he  finds  amiss  in 
all,  and  almost  at  the  same  moment  denounces  the  bishops 
who  defend  the  rights  of  the  Church  as  "  Pharaonici,  Sathan- 
ici,  Behemotici "  ;  so  convinced  is  he  that  their  supposed 
abuse  of  power  entitles  him  to  reprove  them.1 

The  language  in  which  the  mystic  unhesitatingly  passes 
the  severest  possible  judgments  could  scarcely  be  stronger. 

"  We  have  fallen  under  a  Jewish  bondage  .  .  .  our  preachers 
have  concealed  from  the  people  the  truth  regarding  the  right 
way  of  worshipping  God,  and  the  Apostles  must  needs  come  again 
to  preach  to  us."* 

"  When  shall  we  at  last  listen  to  reason,"  he  cries,3  "  and 
understand  that  we  must  spend  our  valuable  time  more  profitably 
[than  in  the  study  of  philosophy]  ?  '  We  are  ignorant  of  what  is 
necessary,'  thus  we  should  complain  with  Seneca,  '  because  we 
merely  learn  what  is  superfluous.'  We  remain  ignorant  of  what 
might  be  of  use  to  us  while  we  busy  ourselves  with  what  is  worse 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  301. 

2  Ibid.,  p.   317  :    "  Nunc  omnes  fere  desipiunt  (this  is  about  the 
Church's  fasts)  .  .  .  ut  rursum  (populus)  apostolis  indigeat  ipsis,  ut 
veram  diaceret  pietotem" 

3  Ibid.,  p.  199. 


282  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

than  worthless."1  He  speaks  thus  because  others  were  not  alive 
to  the  state  of  things,  or  had  not  the  courage  to  open  their  mouths  : 
"  Perhaps  they  would  not  be  believed,  but  I  have  spent  years 
in  these  studies,  have  seen  and  heard  much  and  know  that  they 
are  vain  and  perverse"  ("  studium  vanitatis  et  perditionis  "). 
Therefore  let  us  rise  and  destroy  them  !  "  We  must  learn  to 
know  Jesus  Christ,  and  Him  Crucified.  ...  Is  it  not  a  strange 
madness  to  praise  and  belaud  philosophy,  a  doctrine  which  is 
merely  the  perverse  wisdom  of  the  flesh  advocated  by  so-called 
wise  men  and  theologians  !  " 

"  Those  fools  "  who  do  not  even  know  what  grace  is.  ... 
"  Who  can  bear  with  their  blasphemous  ideas  ?  "  "  They  do  not 
know  what  sin  or  remission  of  sin  is."  "  Our  theologians  see 
sins  only  in  works,  and  do  not  teach  us  how  to  change  our  minds 
and  how  to  implore  grace  with  humble  sighing.  .  .  .  They 
make  proud  men,  men  who  after  due  performance  of  their  works 
look  on  themselves  as  righteous,  and  seek  not  to  fight  against 
their  passions.  That  is  the  reason  why  Confession  is  of  so  little 
use  in  the  Church  and  why  backsliding  occurs  so  frequently."2 

His  hatred  for  theology  leads  him  to  make  the  following  false 
and  bitter  charges  :  "  The  Scholastics  teach  that  it  is  only 
necessary  to  fulfil  the  law  outwardly,  in  deed,  not  with  the  heart ; 
they  do  not  even  show  how  this  is  to  be  done,  and  thus  the 
faithful  are  left  in  the  impossibility  of  doing  good,  because  they 
will  never  be  able  to  fulfil  the  commandments  unless  they  do  so 
with  the  heart.  These  teachers  do  not  even  stretch  out  a  finger 
towards  the  fulfilment  of  the  law,  I  mean,  they  do  not  make  its 
fulfilment  depend  even  in  the  slightest  on  the  heart,  but  merely 
on  outward  acts.  Hence  they  become  vain  and  proud."3  An 
esteemed  Protestant  historian  of  dogma,  in  a  recent  work,  speaks 
of  Luther's  knowledge  of  Scholasticism  as  follows  : 

"  Luther  does  not  appear  to  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
Schoolmen  of  the  Middle  Ages,  more  especially  Thomas  of  Aquin. 
About  this  statement,  which  Denifle  constantly  repeats,  there 
seems  to  me  to  be  no  doubt."4 

The  Wittenberg  Professor  makes  use  of  scathing  reproofs  such 
as  had  never  before  been  heard.  A  good  deal  of  his  criticism  was 
justifiable,  and  he  was  certainly  not  wrong  in  applying  it  judici- 
ously in  his  own  special  domain  to  much  that  had  hitherto  been 
accepted  as  true.  It  is  refreshing  to  those  engaged  in  historical 
research  to  note  how  he  cuts  himself  adrift  from  the  legends  of 
mediaeval  hagiography,  and  how  he  writes  on  one  occasion  request- 
ing Spalatin  to  copy  out  some  particulars  for  him  from  Jerome's 
book  which  he  might  use  for  a  sermon  on  St.  Bartholomew,  "  for 
the  fables  and  lies  of  the  '  Catalogus '  and  '  Legenda  aurea  '  make 

1  Seneca,  Ep.  45,  4. 

2  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  111.    Here  the  term  "  Sawtheologen  "  occurs. 
8  Cp.  Braun,  "  Concupiscenz,"  p.  89. 

*  Fr.  Loofs,  "  Leitfaden  zum  Studium  der  Dogmengesch.,"4  1906, 
p.  690.  Cp.  above,  pp.  127  ff.,  130  ff.,  etc.,  on  Luther's  ignorance  of 
Scholasticism. 


FAULT-FINDING  WITH  THE  CLERGY  283 

my  gorge  rise."1  Criticism  of  ecclesiastical  conditions  was  also 
quite  permissible  when  made  in  the  right  way  and  in  the  proper 
quarters ;  examples  of  such  criticism  were  not  wanting  among 
the  saintly  medieval  reformers,  and  they  might  have  been  accept- 
able to  the  authorities  of  the  Church,  or,  at  any  rate,  could  not 
have  been  repudiated  by  them. 

But  when  Luther  is  dealing  with  the  faults  of  the  clergy, 
secular  or  regular,  he  looks  at  everything  with  a  jaundiced  eye 
as  being  saturated  with  arrogance,  avarice  and  every  vice,  and 
seems  to  fancy  all  have  become  traitors  to  God's  cause.  His  love 
of  exaggeration  and  his  want  of  charity  override  everything, 
nor  do  these  faults  disappear  with  advancing  years,  but  become 
still  more  marked.  Never  was  there  an  eye  more  keen  to  detect 
the  faults  of  others,  never  a  tongue  more  ready  to  amplify  them. 
And  yet  he,  who  does  not  scruple  to  support  his  fierce  and 
passionate  denunciations  by  the  coarsest  and  most  unfair  generali- 
sations, is  himself  the  first  to  admit  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans 
that :  "  There  are  fools  who  put  the  fault  they  have  to  find  with 
a  priest  or  religious  to  the  account  of  all  and  then  abuse  them  all 
with  bitterness,  forgetting  that  they  themselves  are  full  of 
imperfections." 2 

He  announces  to  his  hearers  in  1516  that,  "  to-day  the  clergy 
are  enveloped  in  thick  darkness  "  ;  "it  troubles  no  one  that  all 
the  vices  prevail  among  the  faithful,  pride,  impurity,  avarice, 
quarrelling,  anger,  ingratitude  "  and  every  other  vice  ;  "  these 
things  you  may  do  as  much  as  you  like  so  long  as  you  respect 
the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  Church  !  but  if  you  but  touch  these, 
then  you  are  no  longer  a  true  son  and  friend  of  the  Church." 
The  clergy,  he  continues,  have  received  many  possessions  and 
liberties  from  the  secular  princes,  but  now  they  are  quarrelling 
with  their  patrons  and  insisting  on  their  exemptions :  "  Bad, 
godless  men  strut  about  with  the  gifts  of  their  benefactors  and 
think  they  are  doing  enough  when  they  mutter  a  few  prayers 
on  their  behalf,"  "  and  yet  Paul  when  describing  the  priest  and 
his  duties  never  even  mentioned  prayer  [!].  But  what  he  did 
mention,  that  no  one  complies  with  to-day.  .  .  .  They  are 
priests  only  in  appearance.  .  .  .  Where  do  you  find  one  who 
carries  out  the  intention  of  the  Founders  ?  Therefore  they 
deserve  that  what  they  have  received  [from  the  princes]  should 
be  taken  away  from  them  again."8 

"  As  a  matter  of  fact,"  the  mystic  continues,  quite  manifestly 
conveying  a  hint  to  the  secular  authorities,  "  it  were  better,  and 
assuredly  safer,  if  the  temporalities  of  the  clergy  were  placed 
under  the  control  of  the  worldly  authorities  .  .  .  then  they  would 
at  least  be  obliged  to  stand  in  awe  of  others  and  would  be  more 
cautious  in  all  matters." 

"  Up  to  now  the  laity  have  been  too  unlettered,  and  from 
ignorance  have  allowed  themselves  to  be  led,  though  full  of 
complaints  and  bitterness  against  the  clergy.  But  now  they 

1  August  24,  1516,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  47. 

2  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  335.  3  Ibid.,  p.  300. 


284  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

are  beginning  to  be  aware  of  the  secret  of  our  iniquity  ('  nosse 
mysteria  iniquitatis  nostrce  ')  and  to  examine  into  our  duties. 
...  In  addition  to  this,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  secular  authorities 
fulfil  their  obligations  better  than  our  ecclesiastical  rulers.  They 
rigorously  punish  theft  and  murder,  at  least  when  the  lawyers 
do  not  intervene  with  their  artfulness.  The  Church  authorities, 
on  the  other  hand,  only  proceed  against  those  who  infringe  their 
liberties,  possessions  and  rights,  and  are  filled  with  nothing  but 
pomp,  avarice,  immorality  and  disputatiousness."  In  the  course 
of  this  strong  outburst,  which  gives  us  an  insight  into  the  working 
of  his  mind,  he  goes  on  to  brand  the  higher  clergy  as  "  whited 
sepulchres  "  and  as  the  "  most  godless  breakers  of  the  law,"  who 
purposely  promote  only  stupid  fellows  to  the  priesthood,  or 
even  to  the  most  exalted  offices.  Here  the  intemperance  of  his 
language  is  already  that  of  his  later  days,  though  a  year  was  yet 
to  elapse  before  he  published  his  Indulgence  theses. 

Strictures  on  the  use  of  Indulgences  occur,  however,  among 
his  criticisms  dating  from  this  time.  He  attacks  the  "  unlearned 
preachers  "  whose  promises  of  Indulgences  in  return  for  dona- 
tions for  the  building  of  churches,  or  similar  pious  objects, 
attract  the  people,  though  the  latter  are  "  altogether  careless 
about  fulfilling  the  duties  of  their  calling."  He  lays  to  the  charge 
of  the  Pope  and  the  Bishops  not  merely  the  real  abuses  in  the 
preaching  of  Indulgences— as  though  they  had  been  aware  of 
them  all — but  also  the  making  of  Indulgences  to  depend  on 
offerings  ;  all  the  Bishops  are,  however,  on  the  path  to  hell, 
and  intent  on  seducing  the  people  from  the  true  service  of  God.1 

He  had,  as  we  have  seen,  praised  the  worldly  authorities  at 
the  expense  of  the  ecclesiastical  dignitaries,  and  now  we  find 
him  introducing  into  his  theological  lectures  a  strange  eulogy  of 
Frederick,  his  Elector  :  "  You,  Prince  Frederick,  are  yet  to  be 
guided  by  a  good  angel,  therefore  be  on  the  watch.  How  greatly 
have  you  already  been  tried  by  injustice,  and  how  rightly  might 
you  have  taken  up  arms  !  You  have  suffered,  you  remained 
peaceable.  I  wonder,  were  you  calling  to  mind  your  sins,  and 
wishing  thereby  to  confess  them  and  do  penance  ?  "  To  this 
the  mystic  himself  prudently  replies  :  "  I  know  not,"  and  adds : 
"  Perhaps  it  was  merely  the  fear  of  possibly  getting  the  worse."2 
The  exhortations  he  sees  fit  to  address  to  his  sovereign  are 
directed  not  so  much  against  selfishness  or  other  faults,  but 
rather  against  his  supposed  excessive  piety  ;  he  is  blamed  for 
frequently  postponing  audiences  on  the  plea  that  he  must  be 
present  at  prayers  or  Divine  Service,  and  yet,  Luther  thinks, 
"  we  ought  to  be  resigned  and  indifferent  to  go  wherever  the 
Lord  calls  us  and  not  attach  ourselves  obstinately  to  anything  "  ;3 
another  complaint  was  that  the  Elector  was  too  much  given  to 
imitating  the  Bishop  in  the  collecting  of  relics.  The  Elector's 
love  for  rare  relics  was  indeed  notorious,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
Luther  himself  was  of  service  to  the  Elector  in  this  very  matter 
at  the  time  when  Staupitz  was  negotiating  for  him  at  St.  Ursula's 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  243.          2  Ibid.,  p.  272.          3  Ibid.,  p.  287. 


PRAISES   THE   ELECTOR  285 

in  Cologne.  We  hear  of  this  in  a  letter,  in  which  Luther  also 
sends  his  thanks  to  the  Elector  for  his  present  of  a  new  cowl 
(cucullus)  "of  really  princely  cloth."1 

When,  after  his  second  course  of  lectures  on  the  Psalms, 
Luther  commenced  the  publishing  of  an  amended  edition  he 
dedicated  this,  his  first  effort  in  biblical  exegesis,  to  the  Elector, 
with  a  preface  in  the  form  of  a  panegyric  couched  in  the  most 
fulsome  language.2  The  Elector,  Luther  tells  him,  possessed  all 
the  qualities  of  a  good  ruler  in  no  common  degree  ;  his  love  of 
learning  not  only  rendered  him  immortal  himself,  but  conferred 
this  quality  on  all  those  who  were  permitted  to  belaud  him. 
Under  his  rule  "  pure  theology  triumphed  "  ;  secular  rulers  had, 
by  promoting  learning,  taken  precedence  of  spiritual  dignitaries, 
"  for  the  Church's  exuberant  riches  and  her  powerful  influence 
did  not  avail  her  much."3  Would  that  there  were  other  such 
temporal  princes  as  Frederick,  who,  as  Staupitz  had  said,  was 
able  to  discourse  on  Holy  Scripture  as  learnedly  and  acutely  as 
the  Pope  himself  ("  vel  sanetissimum  et  summum  pontificem 
deceret  ")  ;  whose  utterance  bore  witness  to  the  "  sagacity  of  his 
judgment,"  filled  Luther  with  love  for  such  a  sovereign  and 
made  him  strong  in  the  defence  of  Holy  Scripture  against  all 
Scotists,  Thomists,  Albertists  and  Moderns  (Nominalists).  It 
was  only  on  account  of  his  opponents,  who  scoffed  at  the  Bible 
and  wished  to  replace  God's  Word  by  their  own,  that  he  had  been 
induced  to  quit  his  beloved  solitude  and  retirement ;  indeed, 
he  felt  quite  unworthy  to  wear  the  Doctor's  cap  which  the  Prince 
had  so  kindly  bought  for  him,4  and  merely  did  so  from  obedience  ; 
the  Prince  had  been  more  careful  for  him  than  he  was  for  himself, 
had  upheld  him  in  his  professorship  and  not  allowed  him  to  suffer 
expulsion,  however  much  he  (Luther)  had  desired  to  suffer  this 
at  the  hands  of  his  enemies. 

The  clever  eulogist  appears  soon  to  have  gained  for  himself 
great  favour  at  Court.  Barely  two  months  after  the  letter 
spoken  of,  he  requests  of  the  sovereign,  in  the  name  of  his  priory, 
permission  "  for  the  monks  to  build  a  chamber  outside  the  walls 
in  the  moat."  The  intention  was  to  erect  a  privy  in  the  town 
moat  for  the  use  of  the  monastery,  which  was  situated  close  to 
the  walls.  At  the  same  time  he  begs  that  a  black  cappa  (habit) 
which  had  been  promised  him  in  1516  or  1517  might  now  be 
bestowed  upon  him,  and  refers  to  his  dedication  of  the  Psalter 
as  perhaps  deserving  some  such  reward  ;  he  also  asks  the  Prince 
to  include  in  his  gift  a  white  cloak,  which  he  might  perchance 
have  merited  by  the  "  Apostle,"  i.e.  by  his  Commentary  on  the 

1  To  Spalatin,  December  14,  1516,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  73. 

2  The  Operationes    in    Paalmos  with  the  letter  of  May  27,   1519, 
"  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  480  ff. 

8  "  Adeo  infeliciter  cessit  opulentia  et  poteniatus  ecclesice."  Ibid., 
p.  482. 

*  In  "Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  9,  Luther's  receipt.  See  ibid.,  p.  10,  n.  2, 
for  the  discreditable  and  incorrect  tales  concerning  Luther,  which  grew 
up  around  this  gift. 


286  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Galatians,  upon  which  he  was  at  that 
time  engaged.1 

Such  little  touches  often  reveal  the  spiritual  atmosphere  in 
which  a  man  moves,  and  by  which  he  is  influenced,  quite  as 
well  as  more  important  matters. 

The  frightful  accusations  which  Luther  brings  forward 
in  his  Commentary  on  Romans  against  the  state  of  morals 
in  Rome  belong  to  a  somewhat  earlier  period  ;  their  tone 
is  such  as  to  lead  one  to  fear  the  worst  for  the  author's 
submission  to  the  highest  authorities  in  the  Church.  The 
language  St.  Bernard  employed,  though  he  too  reproved 
the  immorality  of  the  Papal  residence,  is  quite  different 
in  tone  from  the  arrogant  words  of  the  Wittenberg  Doctor ; 
in  the  former  the  most  grievous  reproofs  are  mitigated  by 
the  warm  esteem  the  saint  displays  for  authority  as  such, 
and  by  filial  affection  for  the  Church  ;  in  the  latter  there  is 
nothing  but  bitterness.  Such  outbursts  of  spite  confirm 
our  previous  observations  concerning  the  results  of  Luther's 
journey  to  Rome.  His  indignation  with  what  he  had  seen 
or  heard  during  his  visit  to  Rome  of  the  moral  conditions 
under  Alexander  VI  and  Julius  II  became  gradually  more 
apparent. 

"  At  Rome,"  he  exclaims,  "  they  no  longer  recognise  any 
restrictions  on  their  liberty,  everything  is  set  aside  by  means 
of  dispensations.  They  have  arrogated  to  themselves 
freedom  of  the  flesh  in  every  particular."2 

"  Rome  to-day  has  sunk  back  to  its  old  heathen  state," 
where,  as  Paul  says,  licentiousness  prevailed.3 

"  To-day  Rome  drags  the  whole  world  with  her  into  the 
puddle  ;  she  far  exceeds  in  unbridled  luxury  even  ancient 
Rome,  and  stands  in  even  greater  need  of  apostolic  messengers 
from  God  than  she  did  at  the  beginning.  My  only  hope  is 
that  these  may  come  to  her  in  friendly  guise  and  not  to 
execute  stern  justice."4 

"  We  may  well  be  amazed  at  the  thick  darkness  of  these 
times."  "  It  matters  nothing  to  the  Church  authorities 
though  you  be  steeped  in  all  the  vices  on  the  list  drawn  up 
by  Paul  (2  Tim.  iii.  2  ff.) ;  the  sins  may  cry  to  Heaven  for 
vengeance,  but  that  does  not  matter,  you  are  still  looked 

1  Letter  of  middle  of  May,   1519,   "  Werke,"   Erl.  ed.,   53,  p.   9. 
("  Briefwechsel,"  2,  p.  35.) 

2  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  319.  3  Ibid.,  p.  310.  *  Ibid. 


PRIDE,    ANGER   AND   SENSUALITY    287 

upon  as  the  most  devout  of  Christians  so  long  as  you  respect 
the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  Church."1  "  We  have  mere 
phantom  priests,  who  are  well  supported  by  phantom  revenues. 
The  priests  are  such  only  in  name."2  "  Those  who  ought  to 
keep  order  are  themselves  the  most  godless  transgressors, "  3etc. 

Pride,  everywhere,  is,  he  thinks,  the  main  cause  of  the 
corruption  of  the  times.  The  humility  of  Christ  is  forgotten, 
and  each  one  wants  to  exalt  himself  and  amend  others 
instead  of  himself. 

The  worst  kind  of  pride,  he  constantly  declares,  is  that 
which  exalts  its  own  good  works  in  the  sight  of  God.  This 
spiritual  overbearing  is  the  reason  why  the  world  is  filled 
with  the  heresy  of  the  Pelagians  ;  the  sovereign  efficacy  of 
grace  is  not  recognised.4  Almost  the  whole  Church  is  over- 
turned because  men  have  put  their  trust  in  the  deceptive 
doctrines  of  the  Schoolmen,  which  are  opposed  to  grace, 
"  for  owing  to  this,  all  commit  sin  with  impunity  .  .  .  and 
have  lost  all  sense  of  fear."5 

In  1514  we  hear  Luther  asserting,  that  of  the  three  vices, 
sensuality,  anger  and  pride,  pride  was  the  most  difficult  to 
overcome,  a  warning  which  his  own  experience  had  con- 
firmed all  too  surely.  "  This  vice,"  he  complains,  "  arises 
even  from  victory  over  the  other  vices."8  One  wonders 
whether  he  is  speaking  here  from  personal  experience. 

We  may  ask  a  similar  question  with  regard  to  the  two 
other  faults  mentioned  by  him,  anger  and  sensuality.  Putting 
aside  anger,  the  effects  of  which  upon  himself  he  frequently 
admits,  we  find  that  he  also  gives  an  answer  concerning  the 
third  temptation.  He  writes  in  1519  of  the  experiences  of 
his  earlier  years  with  regard  to  sensuality  :  "  It  is  a  shameful 
temptation,  I  have  had  experience  of  it.  You  yourselves 
are,  I  fancy,  not  ignorant  of  it.  Oh,  I  know  it  well,  when  the 
devil  comes  and  tempts  us  and  excites  the  flesh.  Therefore 
let  a  man  consider  well  and  prove  himself  whether  he  is 
able  to  live  in  chastity,  for  when  one  is  on  heat,  I  know  well 
what  it  is,  and  when  temptation  then  comes  upon  a  man 
he  is  already  blind,"  etc.7 

1  "Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  298.  2  Ibid.,  p.  299.  3  Ibid.,  p.  309. 

«.  Ibid.,  p.  322  f.  5  Ibid.,  p.  323. 

'  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  486.  Cp.  p.  207.  Commentary  on 
Psalms. 

7  From  the  sermon  on  married  life,  1519,  1  ed.,  "  Werke  "  Weim.  ed., 
9,  p.  213. 


288  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

In  his  later  years  he  also  refers  to  the  "  very  numerous 
temptations"  which  he  underwent  at  the  monastery,  and 
of  which  he  complained  to  his  confessor ;  the  more  he 
fought  against  them,  the  stronger  they  became.1 

What  he  says  of  falling  into  sin  is  very  instructive  from 
the  psychological  point  of  view.  It  serves  as  a  stepping- 
stone  to  his  views  on  penance. 

"  Even  to-day,"  he  writes  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans 
where  he  deals  with  hardened  sinners,  "  God  allows  men  to  be 
tempted  by  the  devil,  the  world  and  the  flesh  until  they  are  in 
despair,  choosing  thus  to  humble  His  elect  and  lead  them  to  put 
their  trust  in  Him  alone  without  presuming  upon  their  own  will 
and  works.  Yet  He  often,  especially  in  our  day,  incites  the  devil 
to  plunge  His  elect  into  dreadful  sins  beneath  which  they  languish, 
or  at  least  allows  the  devil  ever  to  hinder  their  good  resolutions, 
making  them  do  the  contrary  of  what  they  wish  to  do,  so  that 
it  becomes  plain  to  them  that  it  is  not  they  who  will  or  perform 
what  is  good.  And  yet  by  means  of  all  this  God  leads  them 
against  their  expectations  [to  His  grace]  and  sets  them  free  while 
they  are  sighing  because  they  desire  and  do  so  much  that  is  evil, 
and  are  unable  to  desire  and  do  the  good  they  would.  Yea,  it 
is  thus  that  God  manifests  His  strength  and  that  His  name  is 
magnified  over  the  whole  earth."2  This  passage  is  scored  in  the 
margin  of  the  original  MS.  Was  it  his  intention  to  include  himself 
among  those  who  are  always  hindered  by  the  devil  from  doing 
what  is  good,  or  even  among  those  whom  he  plunges  into  dreadful 
sins,  who  despair  and  are  then  at  last  led  by  God  to  His  grace 
and  become  promoters  of  the  glory  of  His  name  ?  A  certain 
resemblance  which  this  description  bears  to  other  passages  in 
which  he  recounts  his  temptations,  despair  and  supposed  de- 
liverance and  election  makes  this  seem  possible,  though  it  is  by 
no  means  certain. 

We  are  more  inclined  to  apply  to  him  a  remarkable  description, 
which  he  gives  in  another  passage  of  the  Commentary  on  Romans, 
of  the  devil's  action  on  a  man  whom  he  wishes  to  lead  astray. 
Man's  fall  under  the  bondage  of  sin  and  his  resuscitation  by 
grace  engage  his  attention  often  and  with  a  singular  intensity, 
but  generally  speaking  he  makes  no  mention  of  contrition  or 
satisfaction,  but  only  of  a  covering  over  with  the  righteousness 
of  Christ.  The  description  in  question,  given  in  eloquent  language, 
is  based  on  the  well-known  passage  in  Romans  iii.  28  :  "  We 
account  a  man  to  be  justified  by  faith  without  the  works  of  the 
law."  This  is  the  verse  in  which  Luther  later,  in  his  translation, 
interpolated  the  word  "alone"  ("by  faith  alone"),  but  on 
which  he  does  not  as  yet  bestow  any  particular  attention.  On 
the  contrary,  he  commences  his  exposition  of  this  text  with  the 

1  "  Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  19,  p.  100. 

2  P.  228     Where  he  here  speaks  of  "  sin,"  it  is  more  probable  that 
he  means  concupiscence. 


ON  DOWN-HEARTEDNESS  289 

statement  :  "  Righteousness  must,  indeed,  be  sought  by  works, 
but  these  are  not  the  works  of  the  law  because  they  are  performed 
by  grace  and  in  faith."1 

He  goes  on  to  mention  four  classes  of  men  who  are  led  away 
by  the  devil  in  their  esteem  and  practice  of  works.2  The  first 
he  draws  away  from  all  good  works  and  entangles  in  manifest 
sin.  The  second,  who  think  themselves  righteous,  he  makes 
tepid  and  careless.  The  third,  also  righteous  in  their  own  eyes, 
he  renders  over-zealous  and  superstitious,  so  that  they  set  them- 
selves up  as  a  class  apart  and  despise  others  ;  they  have  been 
mentioned  over  and  over  again  in  the  above  pages,  in  recounting 
his  warfare  with  the  Observants,  the  "  Spirituals,"  the  proud 
self-righteous,  etc. 

The  fourth  and  last  class  might  possibly  include  himself. 

"  The  fourth  class  consists  of  those  who,  at  the  instigation  of 
the  devil,  desire  to  be  free  from  any  sin,  pure  and  holy.  But  as 
they,  nevertheless,  feel  that  they  commit  sin  and  that  all  they 
do  is  tainted  with  evil,  the  devil  terrifies  them  to  such  an  extent 
with  fear  of  the  judgments  of  God  and  scruples  of  conscience  that 
they  almost  despair.  He  is  acquainted  with  each  one's  disposition 
and  tempts  him  accordingly.  As  they  are  zealous  in  the  pursuit 
of  righteousness  the  devil  is  unable  to  turn  them  aside  from  it  so 
readily.  Therefore  he  sets  himself  to  fill  them  with  enthusiasm, 
so  that  they  wish  to  free  themselves  too  speedily  from  all  trace 
of  concupiscence.  This  they  are  unable  to  do,  and  consequently 
he  succeeds  in  making  them  sad,  downcast  and  faint-hearted, 
yea,  even  in  causing  them  unendurable  anxiety  of  conscience 
and  despair." 

When  prescribing  the  remedy,  he  begins  to  use  the  first  person 
plural.  "  Therefore  there  is  nothing  for  us  to  do  but  to  make 
the  best  of  things  and  to  remain  in  sin.  We  must  sigh  to  be  set 
free,  hoping  in  God's  mercy.  When  a  man  desires  to  be  cured 
he  may,  if  in  too  great  a  hurry,  have  a  worse  relapse.  His  cure 
can  only  take  place  slowly  and  many  weaknesses  must  be  borne 
with  during  convalescence.  It  is  enough  that  sin  be  displeasing, 
though  it  cannot  be  altogether  expelled.  For  Christ  bears  every- 
thing, if  only  it  is  displeasing  to  us  ;  His  are  the  sins  not  ours, 
and,  here  below,  His  righteousness  is  our  property." 

We  may  take  that  portion  of  the  description  where  the 
first  person  is  used  as  an  account  of  his  own  state.  Here  he 
is  describing  his  own  practice.  This  passage,  which  in 
itself  admits  of  a  good  interpretation  and  might  be  made  use 
of  by  a  Catholic  ascetic,  must  be  read  in  connection  with 
Luther's  doctrine  that  concupiscence  is  sin.  Looking  at  it 
in  this  light,  the  sense  in  which  he  understands  displeasure 
with  sin  becomes  clear,  also  why,  in  view  of  the  ineradicable 
nature  of  concupiscence,  he  is  willing  to  console  himself 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p   100.  *  Ibid.,  p.  102. 

I.— TJ 


290  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

with  the  idea  that  "  Christ  bears  it  all."  His  dislike  of 
concupiscence  is  entirely  different  from  contrition  for  sin. 
The  young  Monk  frequently  felt  himself  oppressed  by  an 
aversion  for  concupiscence,  but  of  contrition  for  sin  he 
scarcely  ever  speaks,  or  only  in  such  a  way  as  to  raise  serious 
doubts  with  regard  to  his  idea  of  it  and  the  manner  in  which 
he  personally  manifested  it,  as  the  passages  about  to  be 
quoted  will  show.  The  practice  of  making  Christ's  righteous- 
ness our  own,  saying,  "  His  are  the  sins,"  etc.,  he  does  not 
recommend  merely  in  the  case  of  concupiscence,  but  also 
in  that  of  actual  sins  ;  it  should,  however,  be  noted  that  the 
latter  may  quite  well  be  displeasing  to  us  without  there 
being  any  contrition  in  the  theological  sense,  particularly 
without  there  being  perfect  contrition. 

Luther  is  here  describing  the  remedy  which  he  himself 
applies  in  place  of  real  penance,  wholesome  contrition  and 
compunction.  It  is  to  replace  all  the  good  resolutions 
which  strengthen  and  fortify  the  will,  and  all  penitential 
works  done  in  satisfaction  for  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  this 
remedy  he  begins  to  recommend  to  others. 

His  contempt  for  good  works,  for  zeal  in  the  religious  life 
and  for  any  efforts  at  overcoming  self  encourage  him  in 
these  views.  His  new  ideas  as  to  man's  inability  to  do  any- 
thing that  is  good,  as  to  his  want  of  free  will  to  fight  against 
concupiscence  and  the  sovereign  efficacy  of  grace  and 
absolute  predestination,  all  incline  him  to  the  easy  road  of 
imputation ;  finally,  he  caps  his  system  by  persuading 
himself  that  only  by  his  new  discoveries,  which,  moreover, 
are  borne  out  by  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  can 
Christ  receive  the  honour  which  is  His  due  and  His  Gospel 
come  into  its  rights.  Such  was  Luther's  train  of  thought. 

The  characteristic  position  which  Luther  assumed  in  his 
early  days  with  regard  to  penance  and  the  motive  of  fear, 
must  be  more  closely  examined  in  order  to  complete  the 
above  account. 

The  Monk  frankly  admits,  not  once  but  often,  that 
inward  contrition  for  sin  was  something  foreign,  almost 
unknown,  to  him.  The  statements  he  makes  concerning  his 
confessions  weigh  heavily  in  the  scale  when  we  come  to 
consider  the  question  of  his  spiritual  life. 

In  a  passage  of  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  where  he  would 
in  the  ordinary  course  have  been  obliged  to  speak  of  contrition 


ON  CONFESSION  291 

he  refrains  from  doing  so  on  the  plea  that  he  has  had  no  experience 
of  it,  and  refers  his  hearers  to  the  Confessions  of  St.  Augustine.1 

He  admits  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans  that  he  had  struggled 
with  himself  ("  ita  mecum  pugnavi  ")  because  he  could  not  believe 
that  contrition  and  confession  really  cleansed  him  from  sin,  as 
he  had  always  been  conscious  of  sin,  viz.  concupiscence,  still 
continuing  within  him.2 

In  1518  he  writes  :  because  the  evil  inclination  to  sin  always 
remains  in  man  "  there  are  none,  or  at  least  very  few,  in  the  whole 
world  who  have  perfect  contrition,  and  I  certainly  admit  this 
in  my  own  case."3 

According  to  the  statements  he  made  in  later  years  concerning 
his  fruitless  attempts  to  awaken  contrition  within  himself,  and 
concerning  his  relations  with  his  confessor,  he  must  have  taken 
the  wrong  road  at  an  early  period  in  his  religious  life  ;  the  more 
earnestly  he  sought  to  conceive  contrition,  he  says,  the  greater 
was  his  trouble  of  mind  and  remorse  of  conscience.  "  I  was 
unable  to  accept  (  '  non  poteram  admittere  ' )  the  absolutions  and 
consolations  of  my  confessors,  for  I  thought  to  myself,  who  knows 
whether  I.  can  put  faith  in  these  words  of  comfort?"4  This 
sentence  occurs  in  the  passage  mentioned  above,  where  he  states 
how  he  had  been  tranquilised  by  the  repeated  exhortations  of  his 
preceptor  to  recall  God's  command  and  cultivate  the  virtue  of 
hope.5  It  is  true  he  here  ascribes  the  original  cause  of  his  trouble 
of  mind  to  the  teaching  he  had  received  "  in  the  schools,  which 
had  such  a  bad  effect  on  him  that  he  could  not  endure  to  hear 
the  word  joy  mentioned."  It  is  clear  that  he  is  here  speaking 
with  an  ulterior  purpose,  namely,  with  a  view  to  supporting  his 
polemic  against  the  Catholic  Church  ("  meo  exemplo  et  periculo 
moniti  discite .' ").  But  it  is  highly  probable  that  his  idea  of 
concupiscence  as  sin  tended  to  confuse  his  conception  of  con- 
trition, and  made  confession  and  contrition  painful  to  him. 

At  a  later  date  he  opposed  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  con- 
trition on  account  of  his  aversion  to  the  motive  of  fear  of 
the  judgments  of  God. 

1  See  above,  p.  72,  n.  2. 

2  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  109.    Cp.  above,  p.  92,  n.  1. 

3  "Sermo  de  poanitentia,"  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  321. 

4  "  Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  19,  p.  100.    Cp.  his  statement  in  his  first  answer 
to  Prierias  that  zeal  for  sacramental  penance  could  only  endure  by  a 
miracle,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,   1,  p.  649  f.     On  the  other  hand,  he 
speaks  of  experiences  he  had  had  on  the  reception  of  grace,  seemingly 
referring  to  his  confessions  :     "  Probavi  saepius  infusionem  gratice  fieri 
cum  magna  animi  concussione."    This  appears  in  the  Assertio  omnium 
articulorum  (1520).  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  7,  p.  91  ff.    "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,'' 
5,  p.  154.     According  to  the  teaching  of  all  ascetics  the  reception  of 
grace  imparts  peace  and  joy  in  God.    Luther,  however,  infers  from  his 
abnormal  feelings  :     "  Sis  ergo  certus  :    simul  dum  homo  conteritur, 
simul  gratia  infunditur,   et  in  media  terrore  diligit  iustitiam,  si  vere 
poenitet."    Weim.  ed.,  7,  p.  117  ;   "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  5,  p.  189. 

5  See  above,  p.  10. 


292  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

The  Church  had  always  taught  that  perfect  contrition 
was  that  which  proceeded  from  a  real  love  of  God,  but  that 
contrition  from  a  holy  fear  of  God  was  salutary  because  it 
involved  a  turning  away  from  sin  and  a  beginning  of  love. 
Luther,  however,  at  the  very  commencement  of  his  new 
teaching,  was  at  pains  to  exclude  fear  as  an  inspiring  motive. 
He  was  determined  to  weed  it  out  of  the  religious  life  as 
unworthy  of  the  service  of  God,  quite  unmindful  of  the 
fact  that  it  was  expressly  recommended  by  reason,  by  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church  and  by  the  very  words  of  the  Bible. 

He  says,  for  instance,  in  1518  in  his  sermon  on  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, that  in  contrition  for  sin  no  place  is  to  be  assigned 
to  fear.  The  contrition  which  must  be  aroused  is,  he  says,  to 
proceed  from  love  alone,  because  that  which  is  based  on  fear  is 
always  outward,  hypocritical  and  not  lasting.1 

In  an  earlier  sermon  he  mentions  the  two  kinds  of  contrition, 
namely,  that  which,  according  to  him,  is  the  only  true  one, 
"  out  of  love  of  justice  and  of  punishment,"  or  which,  in  other 
words,  hates  sin  from  the  love  of  God,  and  that  which  springs 
from  fear,  which  he  says  is  artificial  and  not  real,  and  to  which 
he  gives  the  nickname  "  gallows  grief."  The  latter,  he  says, 
does  not  make  us  abhor  sin,  but  merely  the  punishment  of  sin, 
and  were  there  no  punishment  for  sin  it  would  at  once  cease.2 
Hence  he  misapprehends  the  nature  of  imperfect  contrition,  for 
this  in  reality  does  not  desire  a  return  to  sin. 

He  begins  his  tract  on  Penance  in  1518  with  the  assertion, 
that  contrition  from  the  motive  of  fear  makes  a  man  a  still 
greater  sinner,  because  it  does  not  detach  the  will  from  sin,  and 
because  the  will  would  return  to  sin  so  soon  as  there  was  no 
punishment  to  be  feared.3  This  contrition,  he  says,  his  oppo- 
nents among  the  theologians  defend  ;  they  could  not  understand 
that  penance  is  sweet  and  that  this  sweetness  leads  to  an  abhor- 
rence and  hatred  of  sin.4 

As  he  had  banished  contrition  from  a  motive  of  fear,  he  should 
have  laid  all  the  more  stress  upon  that  which  springs  from  love. 
But  here  he  was  met  by  a  difficulty,  namely,  that  concupiscence 
still  exists  in  man  and  draws  him  towards  sin,  or  rather,  according 
to  Luther's  ideas,  of  itself  makes  him  a  real  sinner,  so  that  no 
actual  turning  away  from  sin  can  take  place  in  the  heart.  What 
then  was  to  be  done  ?  "  You  must,"  he  says,  "  cast  yourself 
by  prayer  into  God's  hands  so  that  He  may  account  your  con- 
trition as  real  and  true."  "  Christ  will  supply  from  His  own 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  466  :  "  Contritio  de  timore  inferni  et 
peccati  turpitudine  eat  literalis,  ficta  et  brevi  durana,  quid  non  radicata 
amore,  sed  incussa  timore  tantum." 

-  Sermon  of  October  31,  1516,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p   99. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  319.  *  Ibid.,  p.  320. 


TRUE  PENANCE  293 

what  is  wanting  in  yours."1    Thus  we  again  arrive  at  imputation, 
at  a  mere  outward  covering  over  of  the  defect  of  inward  change. 

If  he  looked  upon  penance  and  confession  in  this  light, 
then,  indeed,  they  were  not  of  a  nature  to  satisfy  and 
tranquilise  him.2  We  may,  however,  remark  that  in  the 
time  of  his  great  crisis  an  earnest  and  devout  fear  of  God 
the  Judge  would  have  availed  him  more  than  all  his  ex- 
travagant mysticism  with  its  tendency  to  cast  off  the 
bonds  of  fear  and  abolish  the  keeping  of  the  law. 

We  shall  not  be  wrong  if  we  assume  that  the  frequent 
states  of  terror — of  which  the  cause  lay  in  his  temperament 
rather  than  in  his  will- — had  their  part  in  his  aversion  to 
fear  and  to  the  idea  of  God's  judgment.  He  felt  himself 
impelled  to  escape  at  any  cost  from  their  dominion. 

Other  passages  which  Luther  wrote  at  a  later  date  on 
fear  and  contrition  read  rather  differently  and  seem  to 
advocate  fear  as  a  motive.  We  see  thereby  how  hard  he 
found  it  to  cut  himself  adrift  from  the  natural  and  correct 
view  taught  by  theology.  He  declares,  for  instance,  later, 
with  great  emphasis,  that  "  true  penance  begins  with  the 
fear  and  the  judgment  of  God."3 

He  betrays  in  this,  as  in  other  points,  his  confusion  and 
inconsequence.4 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  321  :   "'Oratio  et  agnitio  atque  confessio 
impcenitentice  tuce,  si  ficta  nonfuerit,  eo  ipsofaciet,  ut  Deus  te  pcenitentem 
verum  reputet."    This  quite  agrees  with  what  he  had  already  said  in  a 
sermon  in  1515  (?)  :    "  Etsi  Deus  imposuit  nobis  impossibilia  et  super 
virtutem  nostram,  non  tamen  hie  ullus  excusalur  "  ;  for  we  cover  ourselves 
with  Christ  :    "  Christus  impletionem  suam  nobis  impertit,  dum  seipsum 
gattinam  nobis  exhibet."    See  above,  p.  80. 

2  The  passage  already  referred  to  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans 
also  comes  in  here,  namely,  where  he  writes  that  he  could  not  under- 
stand why  after  contrition   and   confession   he   should  not  consider 
himself  better  than  others  who  had  not  confessed.    By  this  he  means 
to  convey  that  the  common  teaching  that  by  real  contrition  and  con- 
fession   "esse  omnia  ablata  et  etacuata"  led  to  pride,  whereas  accord- 
ing to  his  idea  sin  still  remained.    Cp.  Denifle- Weiss,  I2,  p.  455,  n.  4. 

3  Commentar.  in  Galat.,  ed.  Irmischer,  Erlangae,  1,   p.   193  seq.  : 
"  Vera  pcenitentia  incipit  a  timore  et  iudicio  Dei." 

4  Cp.  Galley,   "  Die  Busslehre  Luthers,"    1900;    Lipsius,  "Luthers 
Lehre  von  der  Busse,"  1902,  and  Kostlin's  strange  attempts  at  explana- 
tion, "Luthers  Theologie,"  I2,  p.  131  ff.    W.  Hermann,  "Die  Busse  der 
evangelischen  Christen,"  in  "Zeitschr.  fur  Theol.  und  Kirche,"  1,  1891, 
p.  30,  says  :    "It  is  true  that  Luther  never  entirely  forsook  the  true 
idea  on  this  point  (Penance),  which  he  had  arrived  at  with  so  much 
effort.    But  the  difficulties  of  Church  government  led  him  to  relegate 
this  idea  to  the  background  and  to  return  to  the  narrow  Roman 


294  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

He  is  utterly  unfair  to  the  Church  and  to  her  theology 
when  he  falsely  asserts  that  she  had  admitted  contrition 
from  fear  alone,  i.e.  to  the  utter  exclusion  of  love  ;  every 
kind  of  fear,  he  says  maliciously,  was  recognised  as  suffi- 
cient for  receiving  absolution,  even  that  "  gallows  grief  " 
which  abhorred  sin  solely  from  fear  of  punishment  and  with 
the  intention  of  returning  to  it  if  no  punishment  existed 
(timor  serviliter  servilis,  as  it  was  subsequently  termed  by 
theologians).  This  reproach  did  not  strike  home  to  the 
theologians  or  to  the  Church.  Theological  and  moral 
treatises  there  were  in  plenty,  which,  like  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church  and  the  mediaeval  Doctors,  taught  in  express  terms 
the  advantage  of  perfect  contrition  and  exhorted  the 
faithful  to  it.  Indeed,  most  of  the  popular  manuals  merely 
taught  that  sin  must  be  repented  of  for  God's  sake,  from 
love  of  God,  without  even  mentioning  simple  attrition.  It 
wras  not  only  generally  recognised  and  taken  for  granted 
that  the  lower,  imperfect  contrition,  i.e.  that  which  arises 
from  fear,  in  order  to  be  a  means  of  forgiveness  in  the 
Sacrament  of  Penance,  must  include  a  firm  resolution  of  not 
returning  to  sin,  but  it  was  set  down  as  requisite  that  this 
so-called  "  servile  "  fear  (timor  servilis)  must  be  coupled 
with  a  commencement  of  love  of  God,  or  else  be  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  lead  up  to  it.  It  is  sufficient  to  open  the  works 
in  circulation  in  the  theological  schools  at  the  turn  of  the 
fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  to  see  at  what  length  and 
with  what  care  these  questions  were  discussed.  It  cannot, 
however,  be  denied  that  some  few  of  the  later  scholastic 
theologians- — among  them,  significantly  enough,  Johann 
Paltz,  preceptor  in  the  Augustinian  monastery  at  Erfurt 
at  the  time  Luther  entered — did  not  express  themselves 
clearly,  and  that  some  other  theologians  defended  views 
which  were  not  correct.1 

Catholic  view  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance."  And  also  ibid.,  p.  70  : 
"  With  regard  to  the  questions  affecting  contrition,  the  Reformers 
practically  returned  to  the  standpoint  of  the  Roman  Church." 

1  For  the  manner  in  which  contrition  was  taught  before  Luther's 
time  in  popular  works  such  as  are  here  being  considered,  see  the  articles 
of  N.  Paulus  in  the  Innsbruck  "  Zeitschrift  fur  kathol.  Theol.,"  28, 1904  ; 
p.  1  ff.,  on  the  German  confession-books  ;  p.  449  ff.  on  the  German 
books  of  edification  ;  p.  682  ff.  on  the  German  books  on  preparation 
for  death.  Contrition  arising  from  fear  alone  is  not  represented  as 
sufficient  in  any  of  the  numerous  confession-books  at  that  time. 
Ibid.,  pp.  34,  449.  Among  the  authors  of  works  of  piety  there  is  only 
one,  viz.  the  Augustinian  Johann  Paltz,  in  his  "  Celifodina"  (Heavenly 


TRUE  PENANCE  295 

But  whether  such  theologians  exerted  a  positive  or 
negative  influence  on  Luther  we  do  not  know.  One  thing 
is  certain,  however,  namely,  that  he  was  influenced  chiefly 
by  his  own  desire  to  free  himself  from  what  he  looked  upon 
as  an  oppressive  yoke  and  that  his  self-sufficiency  and  ignor- 
ance speedily  led  him  to  fancy  it  his  duty  to  confront  the 
theology  of  previous  ages  with  his  epoch-making  discovery 
regarding  the  doctrine  of  fear  and  penance. 

This  process  is  confirmed  by  a  letter  of  his  addressed  to 
Staupitz,  his  esteemed  Superior,  at  a  time  when  the  commo- 


Mine),  to  admit  that  contrition  from  the  motive  of  fear  together  with 
the  priest's  absolution  sufficed  for  the  remission  of  sin  ;  "  but  even  he 
requires,  in  addition  to  an  earnest  turning  away  from  sin,  a  certain 
striving  after  perfect  contrition,  or  love  ;  he  looks  upon  imperfect 
contrition  rather  as  a  means  of  arriving  at  perfect  contrition  ;  he  is 
even  very  anxious  to  lead  the  faithful  to  the  higher  level  of  perfect 
contrition."  Paulus,  p.  485.  Cp.  on  Paltz,  p.  475—9.  Of  the 
theologians  cp.  more  particularly  Gabriel  Biel,  whose  writings  Luther 
had  studied,  in  his  "  Collectorium  circa  4  libros  sententiarum,"  Tubingae, 
1501,  1.  4,  dist.  35,  q.  unica,  art.  1.  Here  he  makes  a  distinction 
between  "  timor  servilis,"  which  is  ready  to  sin  if  there  were  no  punish- 
ment, and  "  timor,  qui  non  includit  hanc  deformitatem."  He  admits 
with  regard  to  the  latter  :  "  est  tamen  bonus  et  utilis,  per  quern  fit 
paulatim  consuetudo  ad  actus  bonos  de  genere  exercendos  et  malos  vitandos, 
quo  prceparatur  locus  charitatis."  In  Art.  3  he  declares  the  latter  fear 
to  be  a  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But — in  complete  contradiction  to 
the  accusation  which  Luther  makes— he  teaches  that  contrition  merely 
from  fear  is  not  sufficient,  and  requires  a  contrition  from  love.  In  the 
same  way  Nicholas  von  Dinkelsbuhl  in  his  Tractatus  (Argentina,  1516. 
fol.  71)  rejects  the  fear  which  is  not  in  any  way  allied  with  love,  but 
considers  it,  together  with  the  latter,  wholesome  as  forming  a  com- 
mencement of  contrition.  The  Dominican,  Johann  Herolt,  whose 
sermons  were  widely  disseminated,  teaches  in  the  Serrnones  de  tempore 
(1418)  and  the  Sermones  super  epiatclaa  (1439  and  1444)  that  to  avoid 
sin  merely  from  the  fear  of  punishment  is  sinful,  but  he  is  thinking  of 
the  so-called  timor  serviliter  servilis,  in  which  the  voluntary  attachment 
to  sin  still  remains.  He,  as  well  as  some  others,  omits  to  point  out 
that,  in  addition  to  the  bad  servile  fear,  there  was  also  a  wholesome  fear 
(N.  Paulus,  in  his  art.  on  Herolt,  "  Zeitschrift  f.  kathol.  Theol.,"  26, 
1902,  p.  428  f.).  The  Franciscan,  Stephen  Brulefer,  in  his  "  Opuscula" 
(Parisiis,  1500,  fol.  24  seq.)  opposes  certain  theologians  who  had 
rejected  servile  fear  as  absolutely  sinful ;  fear  (which  really  excludes 
sin),  he  says,  is  a  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  theologians  who  teach 
otherwise  are  "  prcedicatorea  prossumptuosi,  indiscreti  et  insipientes," 
and  they  deserved  to  be  punished  as  heretics.  It  was  only  Luther's 
erroneous  teaching  which  led  theologians  to  formulate  this  doctrine 
with  greater  exactitude.  Cp.  A.  W.  Hunzinger,  "  Lutherstudien,"  2 
Heft.  Abt.  1  :  "  Das  Furchtproblem  in  der  katholischen  Lehre  von 
Augustin  bis  Luther,"  Leipzig,  1907.  In  this  article  the  author  wishes 
to  furnish  an  introduction  to  Luther's  doctrine  of  fear,  but  starts  with 
the  assumption  that  the  will  to  sin  is  an  essential  of  the  fear  of  punish- 
ment. On  Hunzinger,  see  the  "  Hist.  Jalirb.,"  28,  1907,  p.  413  f 


296  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

tion  caused   by  his   Indulgence  theses  was  in   full  swing, 
which  gives  us  a  picture  of  his  mental  state.1    In  it  he  says  : 

"  The  word  which  I  hated  most  in  all  the  Scriptures  was  the 
word  penance.  Nevertheless  [when  performing  penance  and  going 
to  confession],  I  played  the  hypocrite  bravely  before  God, 
attempting  to  wring  out  of  myself  an  imaginary  and  artificial 
love."  He  also  grumbles  here  about  the  "  works  of  penance 
and  the  insipid  satisfactions  and  the  wearisome  confession  "  ; 
such  a  prominent  position  ought  not  to  be  assigned  to  them  ; 
the  ordinary  instructions  and  the  modus  confitendi  contained 
nothing  but  the  most  oppressive  tyranny  of  conscience.  He  had 
always  felt  this,  and  in  his  trouble  it  had  been  to  him  like  a  ray 
from  heaven  when  Staupitz  once  told  him  :  "  True  penance  is 
that  only  which  begins  with  the  love  of  God  and  of  justice,  and 
what  the  instructions  represent  as  the  last  and  crown  of  all  is 
rather  the  commencement  and  the  starting-point  of  penance, 
namely,  love."  This  precious  truth  he  had,  on  examination, 
found  to  be  absolutely  confirmed  by  Holy  Scripture  ("s.  scrip- 
turce  verba  undique  mihi  colludebant  ") — Luther  had  a  curious 
knack  of  finding  in  Scripture  everything  he  wanted — even  the 
Greek  term  for  penance,  metanoia,  led  up  to  the  same  conclusion, 
whereas  the  Latin  "  pcenitentiam  agere"  implied  effort  and  was 
therefore  misleading.  Thus  Staupitz's  words  had  turned  the 
bitter  taste  of  the  word  penance  into  sweetness  for  him.  "  God's 
commandments  always  become  sweet  to  us  when  we  do  not 
merely  content  ourselves  with  reading  them  in  books  ;  we  must 
learn  to  understand  them  in  the  wounds  of  our  Sweetest  Saviour." 

The  Monk  was  well  aware  that  such  mystical  utterances 
were  sure  of  finding  a  welcome  echo  with  the  influential 
Vicar  of  the  whole  Augustinian  Congregation,  himself  a 
mystic.  He  sends  him  with  the  same  letter  his  long  Latin 
defence  of  his  Indulgence  theses  (Resolutiones),  which 
Staupitz  was  to  forward  to  the  Pope. 

He  at  the  same  time  expresses  some  of  his  thoughts 
concerning  the  connection  between  his  doctrine  of  penance 
and  the  controversy  on  Indulgences  which  had  just  com- 
menced, probably  hoping  that  Staupitz  would  also  acquaint 
Rome  with  them.  These  we  cannot  pass  over  without 
remark  in  concluding  our  consideration  of  Luther's  doctrine 
on  penance.  The  Indulgence-preachers,  he  says,  must  be 
withstood  because  they  are  overturning  the  whole  system 
of  penance  ;  not  only  do  they  set  up  penitential  works  and 
satisfaction  as  the  principal  thing,  but  they  extol  them,  solely 
with  a  view  to  inducing  the  faithful  to  secure  the  remission 

1  May  30,  1618,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  1,  p.  195. 


STAUPITZ  AS  LUTHER'S  ABETTOR    297 

of  satisfaction  by  their  rich  offerings  in  return  for  Indul- 
gences. Therefore  he  has  been  obliged,  though  unwillingly, 
to  emerge  from  his  retirement  in  order  to  defend  the  doctrine 
that  it  is  better  to  make  real  satisfaction  than  merely  to 
have  it  remitted  by  securing  an  Indulgence. 

Staupitz,  a  short-sighted  man,  was  not  to  be  convinced 
that,  by  Luther's  teaching  and  the  commotion  which  it  was 
arousing,  the  very  existence  of  the  Augustinian  Congregation 
wras  endangered  and  the  Catholic  Church  herself  menaced 
in  her  dogma  and  discipline. 

Instead  of  watching  over  the  communities  committed 
to  his  care  he  spent  his  days  in  travelling  from  place  to 
place,  a  welcome  and  witty  guest  at  the  tables  of  great  men, 
devoting  his  spare  time  to  writing  pious  and  learned  books. 
The  sad  instances  of  disobedience,  dissension  and  want  of 
discipline  which  became  more  and  more  prevalent  in  his 
monasteries  did  not  induce  him  to  lay  a  restraining  hand 
upon  them.  Too  many  exemptions  from  regular  observance 
and  the  common  life  had  already  been  permitted  in  the 
Congregation  in  the  past,  and  of  this  the  effect  was  highly 
pernicious.1  Luther  himself  had  scarcely  ever  had  the 
opportunity  of  acquiring  any  practical  experience  of  the 
monastic  life  at  its  best  during  his  conventual  days  ;  it 
offered  no  splendid  picture  which  might  have  roused  his 
admiration  and  enthusiasm.  This  circumstance  must  be 
taken  into  account  in  considering  his  growing  coldness  in 
his  profession  and  his  gradually  increasing  animosity 
towards  the  religious  life.  He  and  Staupitz  helped  to  destroy 
the  fine  foundation  of  Andreas  Proles  at  a  time  when  it 
already  showed  signs  of  deterioration. 

On  one  occasion,  when  referring  to  his  administration, 
Staupitz  told  Luther,  that  at  first  he  had  sought  to  carry 
out  his  plans  for  the  good  of  the  Order,  later  he  had  followed 

1  Apart  from  Luther,  we  have  another  example  of  the  same  kind  in 
Gabriel  Zwilling,  who  also  left  the  Church,  and  of  whom  Luther  says 
in  a  letter  to  Johann  Lang  at  Erfurt  (March  1,  1517,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1, 
p.  87  f.),  that  he  was  sending  him  to  the  Erfurt  monastery  in  accord- 
ance with  Staupitz's  directions,  and  that  care  was  to  be  taken  "  ut 
conventualiter  per  omnia  se  gerat  :  scis  enim  quod  necdum  ritus  et  mores 
ordinis  viderit  out  didicerit."  Thus  he  had  been  allowed  to  live  at 
Wittenberg  without  conforming  to  community  rule,  unless,  indeed,  we 
read  the  passage  as  implying  that  at  the  Wittenberg  monastery  no 
attention  was  paid  to  the  rule  by  anybody. 


298  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

the  advice  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Order,  and,  then,  entrusted 
the  matter  to  God,  but,  now,  he  was  letting  things  take 
their  course.  Luther  himself  adds  when  recounting  this  : 
"  Then  I  came  on  the  scene  and  started  something  new."1 
It  is  a  proof  of  the  weakness  which  was  coming  upon  the 
institution,  that  a  man  holding  principles  such  as  Luther 
was  advocating  in  his  lectures  and  sermons  should  have 
been  allowed  to  retain  for  three  years  the  position  of  Vicar 
with  jurisdiction  over  eleven  monasteries.  When  he  laid 
down  his  office  in  the  Chapter  at  Heidelberg  in  1518  we  do 
not  even  learn  that  the  Chapter  carried  out  the  measures 
which  had  meanwhile  been  decreed  against  Luther  by  the 
General  of  the  Augustinians  at  Rome.  The  election  of  the 
Prior  of  Erfurt,  Johann  Lang,  Luther's  friend  and  sym- 
pathiser, as  his  successor,  and  the  Heidelberg  disputation 
in  the  Augustinian  monastery  of  that  town,  of  which  the 
result  was  a  victory  for  the  new  teaching,  show  sufficiently 
the  feelings  of  the  Chapter.  This  election  was  the  final 
triumph  of  the  non-Observantine  party. 

A  later  hand  has  added  against  Lang's  name  in  the  Register 
of  the  University  of  Erfurt  the  words  "  Hussita  apostata,"2 
intended  to  stigmatise  his  falling  away  to  the  Lutheran 
heresy  comparable  only  with  that  of  Hus.  On  leaving  the 
Order  he  wrote  an  insulting  vindication  of  his  conduct,  in 
which  among  other  things  he  says  all  the  Priors  are  donkeys. 
While  he  was  Prior  at  Erfurt,  a  Prior  was  appointed  at 
Wittenberg  whom  Luther,  as  Rural  Vicar,  raised  to  this 
dignity  almost  before  he  had  finished  his  year  of  noviceship. 
Only  Luther's  strange  power  over  men  can  account  for  the 
fact  that  so  many  of  the  monks  were  convinced  that  he  was 
animated  by  the  true  Spirit  of  God  in  his  new  ideas  with 
regard  to  conventual  life  and  religion  generally,  and  even 
in  his  overhauling  of  theology.  Later,  when  the  Catholic 
Church  had  spoken,  they  did  not  see  their  way  to  retract 
and  submit,  but  preferred  to  marry.  Staupitz  himself,  the 
inexperienced  theologian,  deceived  by  his  protege's  talents, 
often  said  to  him  :  "  Christ  speaks  through  you."  It  is 
true,  that,  at  a  later  date,  he  sternly  represented  to  Luther 
that  he  was  going  too  far.  After  most  of  the  monks  had 
ranged  themselves  under  the  new  standard,  their  apathetic 

1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  69. 

2  Kolde,  "  Die  deutsche  Augustinerkongregation,"  p.  262. 


LUTHER  AN  EXTREMIST  299 

and  disappointed  Superior  withdrew  to  a  Catholic  monastery 
at  Salzburg,  where  he  expired  in  peace  in  1524  as  a  Bene- 
dictine Abbot. 

At  that  period  Church  discipline  in  Germany  was  already 
ruined.  The  man  who  was  responsible  for  the  downfall 
reveals  a  mental  state  capable  of  going  to  any  extreme 
when  in  1518  he  writes  to  his  fatherly  friend  Staupitz  in 
almost  fanatical  language  :  "  Let  Christ  see  to  it  whether 
the  words  I  have  hitherto  spoken  are  mine  or  His.  Without 
His  permission  no  Pope  or  Prince  can  give  a  decision  (Cp.  Prov. 
xxi.  !)....!  have  no  temporal  possessions  to  lose,  I  have 
only  my  weak  body,  tried  by  many  labours.  Should  they 
desire  to  take  my  life  by  treachery  or  violence  they  will 
but  shorten  my  existence  by  a  few  hours.  I  am  content 
with  my  sweetest  Saviour  and  Redeemer,  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Him  I  will  praise  as  long  as  life  lasts  (Ps.  ciii.  33). 
Should  others  refuse  to  sing  with  me,  what  matters  it  ? 
Let  them  howl  alone  if  it  pleases  them.  May  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  ever  preserve  you,  my  sweetest  father."1 

The  ultra-spiritualism  which  had  cast  its  spell  over  Luther 
was  compounded,  as  we  may  see  from  what  has  gone  before, 
of  pseudo-mysticism,  bad  theology,  a  distaste  for  practical 
works  of  piety,  a  tendency  to  polemics  and  a  misguided 
zeal  for  reform,  not  to  speak  of  other  elements.  This  it 
was  which  animated  him  during  the  years  which  preceded 
his  public  apostasy.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  subsequent 
struggle  against  the  Church  it  is  rather  less  apparent,  being, 
to  a  certain  extent,  kept  within  bounds  by  the  conflict  he 
was  obliged  to  wage  in  his  own  camp  against  dangerous 
fanatics  such  as  Miinzer  and  Carlstadt.  Nevertheless,  his 
spirit  had  not  been  entirely  tamed,  and,  when  occasion 
arose,  as  we  shall  see  later,  was  still  capable  of  all  its  former 
violence. 

The  Monk,  at  the  time  he  was  at  work  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  by  dint  of  studying  the  Bible  and  Tauler,  had, 
as  he  thought,  attained  to  the  mystical  light  of  a  higher 
knowledge,  and  begins  accordingly  to  speak  of  hearing  the 
inward  voice.  He  tries  to  persuade  himself  that  he  hears 
this  voice  speaking  in  his  soul ;  he  looks  upon  it  as  so  im- 
perative that  he  is  obliged,  so  he  says,  to  do  what  it  com- 
1  Letter  of  May  30,  1518,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  199. 


300  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

mands,  "  whether  it  be  foolish  or  evil  or  great  or  small."1 
Thus  the  way  is  already  paved  for  his  mysterious  compre- 
hension of  the  Scriptures  through  the  inner  word,  as  his 
letter  to  Spalatin  shows  ;2  we  have  also  here  the  beginning 
of  what  he  supposed  was  the  ratification  of  his  Divine 
mission  as  proclaimer  of  the  new  teaching. 

Even  before  much  was  known  of  the  data  furnished  by 
the  Commentary  on  Romans  regarding  Luther's  develop- 
ment, Fr.  Loofs,  on  the  strength  of  the  fragments  which 
Denifle  had  made  public,  ventured  to  predict  that,  on  the 
publication  of  the  whole  work,  it  would  be  seen,  "  that  Luther 
was  at  that  time  following  a  road  which  might  justly  be 
described  as  a  peculiar  form  of  quietistic  mysticism."3 
To-day  we  must  go  further  and  say  that  Luther's  whole 
character  was  steeped  in  ultra-spiritualism. 

Johann  Adam  Mohler  says  of  Luther's  public  work  as 
a  teacher  :  "  In  his  theological  views  he  showed  himself  a 
one-sided  mystic."4  He  adds,  "  had  he  lived  in  the  second 
century  Luther  would  have  been  a  gnostic  like  Marcion, 
with  some  of  whose  peculiarities  he  is  in  singular  agreement," 
a  statement  which  is  borne  out  by  what  we  have  seen  of 
Luther's  work  so  far.  Neander,  the  Protestant  historian, 
also  compares  the  growth  and  development  of  Luther's 
mind  with  that  of  Marcion.5  Neander  looks  upon  Marcion 
as  Luther's  spiritual  comrade,  in  fact  as  a  Protestant, 
because  he,  like  the  founder  of  Protestantism,  emphasised 
the  evil  in  man  everywhere,  set  up  an  antagonism  between 
righteousness  and  grace,  between  the  law  and  the  gospel, 
and  preached  freedom  from  the  works  of  the  law.  This 
Marcion  did  by  appealing  to  the  gnosis,  or  deeper  knowledge. 
Luther  likewise  bases  his  very  first  utterances  on  this 
teaching  and  appeals  to  the  more  profound  theology  ;  he 
possesses  that  seductive  enthusiasm  which  Marcion  also 
displayed  at  the  commencement  of  his  career.  Soon  we 
shall  see  that  Luther,  again  like  Marcion,  brushed  aside 
such  books  of  the  Bible  as  stood  in  his  way  ;  the  canon  of 
Holy  Scripture  must  be  brought  into  agreement  with  his 
special  conception  of  doctrine,  and  he  and  his  pupils  amplified 
and  altered  this  doctrine,  even  in  its  fundamentals,  to  such 

1  See  above,  p.  95.  2  See  below,  p.  323. 

8  "  Deutsch-evangelische  Blatter,"  32,  1907,  p.  537. 
4  "  Kirchengesch.,"  ed.  by  P.  Gams,  3,  1868,  p.  106. 
6  "  Kirchengesch.,"  1,  p.  782. 


AN   INCARNATION  OF  PARADOX    301 

a  degree,  that  the  words  which  Tertullian  applied  to  Marcion 
might  quite  fit  Luther  too  :  "  nam  et  quotidie  reformant 
illud"  i.e.  their  gospel.1  Luther  at  the  very  outset  obscured 
the  conception  of  God  by  his  doctrine  of  absolute  predestina- 
tion to  hell.  Marcion,  it  is  true,  went  much  further  than 
Luther  in  obfuscating  the  Christian  teaching  with  regard 
to  God  by  setting  up  an  eternal  twofold  principle,  of  good 
and  evil.  The  Wittenberg  Professor  never  dreamt  of  so 
radical  a  change  in  the  doctrine  respecting  God,  and  in 
comparison  with  that  of  Marcion  this  part  of  his  system  is 
quite  conservative. 

We  find  in  Luther,  from  the  beginning  of  his  career, 
together  with  his  rather  gloomy  ultra-spiritualism,  another 
characteristic  embracing  a  number  of  heterogeneous  quali- 
ties, and  which  we  can  only  describe  as  grotesque.  Side  by 
side  with  his  love  of  extremes,  we  find  an  ultra-conservative 
regard  for  the  text  of  Holy  Scripture  as  he  understood  it, 
no  matter  how  allegorical  his  pet  interpretation  might  be. 
Again,  the  pious  mysticism  of  his  language  scarcely  agrees 
with  the  practical  disregard  he  manifested  for  his  profession. 
To  this  must  be  added,  on  the  one  hand,  his  tendency  to 
spring  from  one  subject  to  another,  and  the  restlessness 
which  permeates  his  theological  statements,  and  on  the 
other,  liis  ponderous  Scholasticism.  Again  we  have  the 
digressions  in  which  he  declaims  on  public  events,  and, 
besides,  his  incorrect  and  uncharitable  criticisms ;  here 
he  displays  his  utter  want  of  consideration,  his  ignorance 
of  the  world  and  finally  a  tempestuous  passion  for  freedom 
in  all  things,  which  renders  him  altogether  callous  to  the 
vindication  of  their  rights  by  others  and  makes  him  sigh 
over  the  countless  "  fetters  of  men."2  All  this,  taken  in  con- 
nection with  his  unusual  talent,  shows  that  Luther,  though 
a  real  genius  and  a  man  of  originality,  was  inclined  to  be 
hysterical.  How  curiously  paradoxical  his  character  was 
is  revealed  in  his  exaggerated  manner  of  speech  and  his 
incessant  recourse  to  antithesis. 

With  an  unbounded  confidence  in  himself  and  all  too 
well  aware  of  the  seduction  exercised  by  his  splendid  talents, 
he  yet  does  not  scruple  to  warn  others  with  the  utmost 

1  "  Adversus  Marcion.,"  4,  c.  5. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  576  :  In  the  "  wretched  study  of  right 
and  law  "   we   find  everywhere  the   comfortless  fetters   of  precepts. 
"  O  reptilia,"  he  cries,  "  quorum  non  eat  numerus  I  " 


302  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

seriousness  against  their  "  inclinations  to  arrogance,  avarice 
and  ambition,"  and  to  represent  pride  as  the  cardinal  sin.1 
He  is  keen  to  notice  defects  in  earlier  theologians,  but  an 
unhappy  trait  of  his  own  blinds  him  to  the  fact  that  the 
Church,  as  the  invincible  guardian  of  truth,  must  soon  rise 
up  against  him. 

He  has  already  discovered  a  new  way  of  salvation  which 
is  to  tranquilise  all,  and  yet  he  will  be  counted,  not  among 
those  who  feel  sure  of  their  salvation,  but  among  the  pious 
who  are  anxious  and  troubled  about  their  state  of  grace, 
"  who  are  still  in  fear  lest  they  fall  into  wickedness,  and, 
therefore,  through  fear,  become  more  and  more  deeply 
steeped  in  humility  in  doing  which  they  render  God  gracious 
to  them."2  The  assurance  of  salvation  by  faith  alone,  the 
sola  fides  of  a  later  date,  he  still  protests  against  so 
vigorously,  that,  when  he  fancies  he  espies  it  in  his  oppo- 
nents in  any  shape  or  form,  he  attacks  them  as  "  a  pestilential 
crew,"  who  speak  of  the  signs  of  grace  and  thereby,  as  he 
imagines,  lull  men  into  security. 

The  last  words  show  that  the  process  of  development  is 
not  yet  ended.  What  we  have  considered  above  was  merely 
the  first  of  the  two  stages  which  he  traversed  before  finally 
arriving  at  the  conception  of  his  chief  doctrine.3 

1  Cp.  Braun,  "  Concupiscenz,"  p.  22. 

a    "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  323. 

8  For  the  second  stage,  see  ch.  x.  1-2. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

THE    COMMENTARY   ON   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   GALATIANS. 
FIRST   DISPUTATIONS   AND   FIRST   TRIUMPHS 

1.  "The  Commencement  of  the  Gospel  Business."    Exposition 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (1516-17) 

LUTHER'S  friends  and  admirers  were  at  a  later  date  loud 
in  their  praise  of  the  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
and  on  that  to  the  Galatians  which  he  commenced  imme- 
diately after,  and  looked  upon  these  as  marking  the  dawn 
of  a  new  epoch  in  theology.  Luther  himself,  with  more 
accuracy,  designated  the  first  disputations,  of  which  we 
shall  come  to  speak  presently,  as  the  "commencement  of 
the  gospel  business." 

Melanchthon  in  his  short  sketch  of  Luther's  life  speaks  pomp- 
ously of  these  lectures  and  manifests  his  entire  unacquaintanee 
with  the  old  Church  and  the  truths  for  which  she  stood. 

"  In  the  opinion  of  the  wise  and  pious  the  light  of  the  new 
teaching  first  broke  forth,  after  a  long  and  dark  night,  in  the 
Commentary  on  these  Epistles.  There  Luther  pointed  out  the 
true  distinction  between  the  law  and  the  gospel ;  there  he 
refuted  the  Pharisaical  errors  which  then  ruled  in  the  schools  and 
in  the  pulpits,  namely,  that  man  was  able  to  obtain  forgiveness 
of  sin  by  his  own  efforts  and  could  be  justified  before  God  by  the 
performance  of  outward  works.  He  brought  back  souls  to  the 
Son  of  God,  he  pointed  to  the  Lamb,  Who  bore  the  guilt  of  our 
sins.  He  demonstrated  that  sin  was  forgiven  for  the  sake  of  the 
Son  of  God  and  that  such  a  favour  ought  to  be  accepted  in  faith. 
He  also  shed  a  great  light  on  the  other  articles  of  faith."1 

Mathesius,  Luther's  pupil  and  eulogist,  in  his  sermons  on 
Luther,  points  out,  in  the  following  passionate  words,  the  im- 
portance of  the  lectures  and  disputations  held  by  his  master  : 
"  Dr.  Luther  in  all  his  lectures  and  disputations  chiefly  treats  of 
this  question  and  article,  whether  the  true  faith  by  which  we  are 
to  live  a  Christian  life  and  die  a  happy  death  is  to  be  learned 
from  Holy  Scripture  or  from  the  godless  heathen  Aristotle,  on 
whom  the  Doctors  of  the  Schools  attempted  to  base  the  doctrine 
of  the  Romish  Church  and  of  the  monks."  "  This  is  the  chief 

1  "  Vita  Lutherl,"  p.  6. 
303 


304  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

issue  between  Dr.  Luther  and  the  Sophists.  .  .  .  Young  Dr. 
Luther  has  solemnly  sworn,  in  due  form,  a  true,  public  and  godly 
oath  that  he  will  hold  fast  by  the  holy  and  certain  Scriptures  ; 
that  it  was  more  reasonable  that  we  should  rely  in  matters  of 
faith  and  conscience  on  the  godly  Scriptures  rather  than  stake 
our  souls  and  consciences  on  the  teaching  of  darksome  Scotus, 
foolish  Albertus,  questionable  Thomas  of  Aquin,  or  of  the 
Moderns  or  Occamists.  .  .  .  He  insisted  upon  this  in  his  writings 
and  disputations  before  ever  he  began  his  controversy  on  In- 
dulgences. For  this  reason  he  was  at  the  time  scolded  as  a 
heretic  and  condemned  by  many  because  he  scorned  all  the  High 
Schools  and  the  learned  men.  .  .  .  Although  both  his  brethren 
and  other  monks  questioned  all  this,  yet  they  were  unable  to 
bring  forward  anything  effective  against  him  and  his  weighty 
reasoning."1 

Luther's  sermons  and  letters  of  the  years  1516  to  1518 
bear  witness  to  the  commotion  caused  by  his  theological 
opinions. 

The  "  new  theology  "  which  was  being  proclaimed  at 
Wittenberg  was  discussed  with  dismay,  particularly  at 
Erfurt  and  in  the  more  conservative  monasteries.  Andreas 
Carlstadt,  Luther's  colleague  at  the  University,  and  Peter 
Lupinus,  a  former  professor  at  Wittenberg,  were  at  first 
among  his  opponents,  but  were  speedily  won  over.  Carlstadt 
indeed,  as  his  152  theses  of  April,  1517  show,  even  went 
further  on  the  new  lines  than  Luther  himself.2  Another 
of  his  colleagues  at  the  University,  who  at  a  later  date 
proved  a  more  trustworthy  ally,  was  Nicholas  Amsdorf. 
Schurf,  the  lawyer,  was  one  of  his  most  able  patrons  among 
the  lay  professors.  Spalatin,  Court  Chaplain,  vigorously 
but  prudently  advocated  his  cause  with  the  Elector.  At 
Wittenberg  Luther's  party  speedily  gained  the  ascendant. 
The  students  were  full  of  enthusiasm  for  the  bold,  ready  and 
combative  teacher,  whose  frequent  use  of  German  in  his 
lectures— at  that  time  an  unheard-of  thing' — also  pleased 
them.3  The  disputations,  particularly,  could  thus  be  con- 
ducted with  less  constraint  and  far  more  forcibly. 

It  is  hard  to  say  how  far  Luther  realised  the  danger  of 
the  path  he  was  treading. 

He  wrote  to  Dr.  Christopher  Scheurl,  a  Nuremberg  lawyer, 

1  "Historien"Bl.,  8',  9. 

2  Cp.  Barge,  "  Andreas  Bodenstein  von  Karlstadt,"  1,  p.  45. 

3  "  Chronik,"  p.  28  :   Luther  in  his  lectures  "  turned  the  Latin  into 
German." 


AUGUSTINE   VERSUS  ARISTOTLE     305 

who  was  also  one  of  his  early  patrons  and  protectors, 
thanking  him  in  the  humble  words  of  exaggerated  human- 
istic courtesy  for  the  praise  he  had  bestowed  upon  him  : 
he  (Luther)  recognised  that  the  favour  and  applause  of  the 
world  were  dangerous  for  us,  that  self-complacency  and 
pride  were  man's  greatest  enemies.  He,  nevertheless,  tells 
him  in  the  same  letter  that  Staupitz,  at  one  time  his  Superior 
and  Director,  had  repeatedly  said  to  him  much  to  his 
terror  :  "  I  praise  Christ  in  you,  and  I  am  forced  to  believe 
Him  in  you."1 

In  his  exultation  at  the  great  success  which  he  had 
achieved  at  Wittenberg  he  says  joyfully  in  the  spring  of 
1517  in  a  letter  to  a  friend  :  "  Our  theology  and  St.  Augustine 
are  progressing  happily  and  prevail  at  our  University 
('  procedunt  et  regnant,"  cp.  Ps.  xliv.  5).  Aristotle  is  at  a 
discount  and  is  hurrying  to  everlasting  destruction.  People 
are  quite  disgusted  with  the  lectures  on  the  Sentences  [of 
Peter  Lombard],  and  no  one  can  be  sure  of  an  audience 
unless  he  expounds  this  theology,  i.e.  the  Bible  or 
St.  Augustine,  or  some  other  teacher  of  note  in  the  Church."2 

He  continued  to  rifle  St.  Augustine's  writings  for  passages 
which  were  apparently  favourable  to  his  views.  He  says, 
later,  that  he  ran  through  the  writings  of  this  Father  of  the 
Church  with  such  eagerness  that  he  devoured  rather  than 
read  them.3  He  certainly  did  not  allow  himself  sufficient 
time  to  appreciate  properly  the  profound  teachings  of  this, 
the  greatest  Father  of  the  Church,  and  best  authority  on 
grace  and  justification.  Even  Protestant  theologians  now 
admit  that  he  quoted  Augustine  where  the  latter  by  no 
means  agrees  with  him.4  His  own  friends  and  contem- 
poraries, such  as  Melanchthon,  for  instance,  admitted  the 
contradiction  existing  between  Luther's  ideas  and  those  of 
St.  Augustine  on  the  most  vital  points  ;  it  was,  however, 

1  Letter  of  January  27,    1517,   "  Brief wechsel,"    1,  p.   83:    "  Non 
sine  timore  meo  me  undique  iactat  et  dicit :    Christum  in  te  prcedico  et 
credere  cogor.' 

2  To  Johann  Lang,  May  18,  1517,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  100. 

3  From    Veit    Dietrich's    MS.    Collecta,    fol.    137',    in    Seidemann, 
"  Luthers  Psalmenvorlesungen,"    1,  p.  vii.  :     "  Augustinum  vorabam, 
non  legebam." 

*  "  One  of  the  best  points  in  Denifle's  book  is  the  proof  he  gives  that 
Luther  misunderstood  Augustine's  doctrine  on  sin,  to  which  he  looked 
as  his  chief  support  in  the  Church."  W.  Kohler,  in  "  Ein  Wort  zu 
Denifles  Luther,"  p.  27. 

I.— X 


306  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

essential  that  this  Father  of  the  Church,  so  Melanchthon 
writes  to  one  of  his  confidants,  should  be  cited  as  in  "  entire 
agreement  "  on  account  of  the  high  esteem  in  which  he  was 
generally  held.1  Luther  himself  was,  consciously  or  un- 
consciously, in  favour  of  these  tactics  ;  he  tampered  auda- 
ciously with  the  text  of  the  Doctor  of  the  Church  in  order 
to  extract  from  his  writings  proofs  favourable  to  his  own 
doctrine  ;  or  at  the  very  least,  trusting  to  his  memory,  he 
made  erroneous  citations,  when  it  would  have  been  easy 
for  him  to  verify  the  quotations  at  their  source  ;  the  only 
excuse  to  be  alleged  on  his  behalf  in  so  grave  a  matter  of 
faith  and  conscience  is  his  excessive  precipitation  and  his 
superficiality. 

Luther's  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  com- 
menced on  October  27,  1516. 

These  he  published  in  1519  in  an  amended  form,2  whereas 
those  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  never  appeared  to  him 
fit  for  publication.  Notes  of  the  original  lectures  on  Gala- 
tians are  said  to  be  in  the  possession  of  Dr.  Krafft  of  Elber- 
feld,  and  will  in  all  probability  appear  in  the  Weimar  edition 
of  Luther's  works.3 

The  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  on  that 
to  Titus  followed  in  1517.  Notes  of  the  former,  as  stated 
above,  exist  at  Rome,  and  their  approaching  publication 
will  throw  a  clearer  light  on  the  change  in  the  theological 
views  of  their  author. 

In  the  printed  Commentary  on  Galatians  Luther's 
teaching  appears  in  a  more  advanced  form.  His  develop- 
ment had  not  only  progressed  during  the  course  of  the 
lectures,  but  the  time  which  elapsed  before  their  publication 
brought  him  fresh  material  which  he  introduced  into  the 
Commentary.  It  would  be  essential  to  have  them  in  the 
form  in  which  they  were  delivered  in  order  to  be  able  to 
follow  up  the  process  which  went  forward  in  his  mind.  It 
is  nevertheless  worth  while  to  dwell  on  the  work  and  at  the 
same  time  to  compare  parallel  passages  from  Luther's 
other  Commentary  on  Galatians- — to  be  referred  to  imme- 
diately— were  it  only  on  account  of  the  delight  he  takes  in 

1  Melanchthon  to  Brenz,  end  May,  1531,  "  Brief wechsel  "9,  p.  18  f. 

2  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  436  ff.     Cp.  in  the  Erl.  ed.,  "  Com- 
mentar.  in  Ep.  ad  Galat.,"  ed.  Irmischer,  1,  p.  iii.  seq.  ;   3,  p.  121  seq. 

3  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  751,  n.  to  p.  107,  2. 


COMMENTARY  ON  GALATIANS      307 

referring  to  this  Epistle,  or  of  the  fact  that  his  exposition  of 
it  runs  counter  to  the  whole  of  tradition. 

Luther  ever  had  the  highest  opinion  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  and  of  his  own  Commentaries  on  it.  At  a  later 
date  he  says  jokingly  :  "  Epistola  ad  Galatas  is  my  Epistle 
to  which  I  have  plighted  my  troth  ;  my  own  Katey  von 
Bora."1  Melanchthon  praises  Luther's  Commentary  on 
Galatians  in  a  more  serious  fashion  and  says,  it  was  in  truth 
"  the  coil  of  Theseus  by  the  aid  of  which  we  are  enabled  to 
wander  through  the  labyrinth  of  biblical  learning."2 

Besides  the  shorter  Commentary  on  Galatians  published 
in  1519  there  is  also  a  much  longer  one  compiled  from  notes 
of  Luther's  later  lectures,  made  public  in  1535  by  his  pupil 
Rorer,  together  with  a  Preface  by  Luther  himself.3  Pro- 
testants consider  it  as  "  the  most  important  literary  product 
of  his  academic  career  "  and,  in  fact,  as  "  the  most  important 
of  his  theological  works."4  In  what  follows  we  shall  rely, 
as  we  said  before,  on  the  sources  which  afford  the  most 
accurate  picture  of  his  views,  i.e.  on  both  the  shorter  and 
the  longer  redaction  of  his  Commentary  on  Galatians, 
especially  where  the  latter  repeats  in  still  more  forcible 
language  views  already  contained  in  the  former. 

It  is  well  to  know  that,  in  his  expositions  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians,  Luther's  antagonism  to  the  Catholic 
doctrine  of  Works,  Justification  and  Original  Sin  is  carried 
further  than  in  any  other  of  his  exegetical  writings,  until, 
indeed,  it  verges  on  the  paradoxical.  Nowhere  else  does  the 
author  so  unhesitatingly  read  his  own  ideas  into  Holy 
Scripture,  or  turn  his  back  so  completely  on  the  most 
venerable  traditions  of  the  Church. 

For  instance,  he  shows  how  God  by  His  grace  was  obliged  to 
renew,  from  the  root  upwards,  the  tree  of  human  nature,  which 
had  fallen  and  become  rotten  to  the  core,  in  order  that  it  might 
bear  fruit  which  was  not  mere  poison  and  sin  and  such  as  to 
render  it  worthy  to  be  cast  into  hell  fire.  Everything  is  made  to 
depend  upon  that  terrible  doctrine  of  Divine  Predestination, 
which  inexorably  condemns  a  portion  of  mankind  to  hell.  It  never 
occurred  to  him  that  this  doctrine  of  a  Predestination  to  hell  was 
in  conflict  with  God's  goodness  and  mercy,  at  least,  he  never  had 
the  least  hesitation  in  advocating  it.  The  only  preparation  for 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  437. 

2  See  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  275. 

3  In  Irmischer's  Erl.  edition,  printed  in  three  volumes. 

4  Cp.  Kostlin-Kawerau,  2,  p.  300  f. 


308  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

salvation  is  the  predestination  to  heaven  of  the  man  upon  whom 
God  chooses  to  have  mercy,  seeing  that  man,  on  his  part,  is 
utterly  unable  to  do  anything  ("  unica  dispositio  ad  gratiam  est 
ceterna  Dei  electio  ").  Man  is  justified  by  the  faith,  which  is 
wrought  by  God's  gracious  Word  and  Spirit,  but  this  faith  is 
really  confidence  in  God's  pardoning  grace  through  Christ 
("  Sufficit  Christus  per  fidem,  ut  sis  iustus  ").  In  the  printed 
Commentary  on  Galatians  we  already  have  Luther's  new  doctrine 
of  the  absolute  assurance  of  salvation  by  faith  alone. 

This  later  discovery  he  insists  upon,  with  wearisome  reitera- 
tion, in  the  Commentary  on  Galatians  as  the  only  means  of 
bringing  relief  to  the  conscience.  We  shall  have  occasion  later 
(ch.  x.,  1,  2)  to  speak  of  the  origin  of  this  new  element  in  his 
theology,  which  he  made  his  own  before  the  publication  of  the 
first  Commentary  on  Galatians. 

He  entirely  excludes  love  from  this  faith,  even  the  slightest 
commencement  of  it,  in  more  forcible  terms  than  ever.  "  That 
faith  alone  justifies,"  he  writes,  "  which  apprehends  Christ  by 
means  of  the  Word,  and  is  beautified  and  adorned  by  it,  not  that 
faith  which  includes  love.  .  .  .  How  does  this  take  place,  and 
how  is  the  Christian  made  so  righteous  ?  "  he  asks.  "  By  means 
of  the  noble  treasure  and  pearl,  which  is  called  Christ,  and  which 
he  makes  his  own  by  faith."  "  Therefore  it  is  mere  idle, 
extravagant  talk  when  those  fools,  the  Sophists  [the  scholastic 
theologians]  chatter  about  the  fides  formata,  i.e.  a  faith  which  is 
to  take  its  true  form  and  shape  from  love."1  The  relation  which 
exists  between  this  view  of  a  mechanically  operating  faith  (which 
moreover  God  alone  produces  in  us)  and  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
of  the  exclusive  action  of  God  in  the  "  dead  tree  "  of  human 
nature,  cannot  fail  to  be  perceived.  How  could,  indeed,  such  a 
view  of  God's  action  admit  of  any  real,  organic  co-operation  on 
the  part  of  man,  even  when  exalted  and  strengthened  by  grace, 
in  the  work  of  his  own  eternal  salvation  by  virtue  of  faith 
working  through  love  ? 

God's  mercy,  Luther  says,  is  made  known  to  man  by  a  whisper 
from  above  (the  "  secret  voice  ")  :  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee  ; 
the  perception  of  this  is  not,  however,  essential ;  probably, 
Luther  recognised  that  this  was  altogether  too  problematical. 
Hence  there  is  no  escape  from  the  fact  that  justification  must 
always  remain  uncertain.  The  author  of  this  doctrine  demands, 
however,  that  man  should  induce  in  himself  a  kind  of  certainty, 
in  the  same  way  that  he  demands  certainty  in  the  acceptance  of 
all  facts  of  faith.  "  You  must  assume  it  as  certain  that  your 
service  is  pleasing  to  God.  But  this  you  can  never  do  unless 
you  have  the  Holy  Ghost."8  How  are  we  to  know  whether  we 
have  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Again  he  answers  :  "  We  must  accept 
as  certain  and  acknowledge  that  we  are  the  temple  of  God."3 
"  We  must  be  assured  that  not  our  service  only  but  also  our 
person  is  pleasing  to  God."4  He  goes  on  in  this  tone  without  in 

1  Cp.  Mohler,  "Symbolik,"  p.  156,  n.  1. 

2  Comment,  in  Gal.,  2,  p.  163.        3  Ibid.,  p.  161.      4  Ibid.,  p.  164. 


COMMENTARY  ON   GALATIANS      309 

the  least  solving  the  difficulty.1  He  declares  that  we  must 
risk,  try,  and  exercise  assurance.  This,  however,  merely 
depends  upon  a  self-acquired  dexterity,2  upon  human  ability, 
which,  moreover,  frequently  leaves  even  the  strongest  in  the 
lurch,  as  we  shall  see  later  from  Luther's  own  example  and  that 
of  his  followers. 

He  goes  so  far  in  speaking  of  faith  and  grace  in  the  larger 
Commentary  on  Galatians,  as  to  brand  the  most  sublime  and 
holy  works,  namely,  prayer  and  meditation,  as  "  idolatry " 
unless  performed  in  accordance  with  the  only  true  principle  of 
faith,  viz.  with  his  doctrine  regarding  justification  by  faith  alone. 
This  can  be  more  readily  understood  when  we  consider  that 
according  to  him,  man,  in  spite  of  his  resistance  to  concupiscence, 
is,  nevertheless,  on  account  of  the  same,  guilty  of  the  sins  of 
avarice,  anger,  impurity,  a  list  to  which  he  significantly  adds  "  et 
cetera,"3 

He  had  expressed  himself  in  a  similar  way  in  the  shorter 
Commentary,  but  did  not  think  his  expressions  in  that  book 
strong  enough  adequately  to  represent  his  ideas.* 

As  he  constantly  connects  his  statements  with  what  he  looks 
upon  as  the  main  contentions  of  St.  Paul  in  the  Epistles  to  the 
Romans  and  the  Galatians,  we  may  briefly  remind  our  readers 
of  the  interpretation  which  the  older  theology  had  ever  placed 
upon  them. 

The  Apostle  Paul  teaches,  according  to  the  Fathers  and  the 
greatest  theologians  of  the  Middle  Ages,  that  both  Jews  and 
heathen  might  attain  to  salvation  and  life  by  faith.  He  proves 
this  by  showing  that  the  heathen  were  not  saved  by  the  works 
of  nature,  nor  the  Jews  by  the  works  of  the  Mosaic  Law  ;  but  he 
does  not  by  any  means  exclude  works  altogether  as  unnecessary 
for  justification.  In  the  important  passage  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  (Rom.  i.  17)  where  Paul  quotes  the  words  of  Habacuc  : 
"  The  just  man  liveth  by  faith,"  there  was  no  call  to  define  more 
clearly  the  nature  of  justifying  faith,  or  to  explain  to  what  extent 
it  must  be  a  living  faith  showing  itself  in  works  in  charity  and 
in  hope.  To  exclude  works  from  faith,  as  Luther  assumes  him  to 
do,  was  very  far  from  his  intention  in  that  passage.  Nor  is  this 
idea  involved  in  the  saying  which  Luther  so  frequently  quotes 
(Rom.  iii.  28)  :  "  We  account  a  man  to  be  justified  by  faith 
without  the  works  of  the  law,"  for  here  he  merely  excludes  the 
works  "  of  the  law,"  i.e.  according  to  the  context  such  works  as 
do  not  rest  on  faith  but  precede  faith,  whether  the  purely  out- 
ward works  of  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  law,  or  other  natural  works 
done  apart  from,  or  before,  Christ.  We  shall  speak  later  of 
Luther's  interpolation  in  this  passage  of  the  word  "  alone  "  after 
"  faith  "  in  his  translation  of  the  Bible  (see  vol.  v.,  xxxiv.  3). 

When  St.  Paul  elsewhere  describes  more  narrowly  the  nature 

1  Cp.  Denifle- Weiss,  1,  p.  733,  where  a  thorough  examination  is  made 
of  the  certainty  of  salvation  assumed  in  this  system. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  735.  3  Cp.  Mohler,  p.  139. 
«  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  275. 


310  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

of  justifying  faith  (a  fact  to  which  both  the  Fathers  and  the 
theologians  draw  attention),  he  is  quite  emphatic  in  asserting 
that  the  sinner  is  not  admitted  by  God  to  grace  and  made 
partaker  of  the  heavenly  promises  merely  by  virtue  of  a  dead 
faith,  but  by  a  real,  supernatural  faith  which  works  by  charity 
(Gal.  v.  6).  This  in  previous  ages  had  been  rightly  understood  to 
mean  not  merely  an  acceptance  of  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
intimate  persuasion  of  the  remission  of  one's  sins,  but  a  faith 
enlivened  by  grace  with  charity.  In  confirmation  of  this,  other 
well-known  passages  of  the  New  Testament  were  always  quoted  : 
"  Wilt  thou  know,  O  vain  man,  that  faith  without  works  is 
dead  ?  "  "  Do  you  see  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified  ;  and  not 
by  faith  only  ?  "  "  For  even  as  the  body  without  the  spirit  is 
dead  :  so  also  faith  without  works  is  dead."  "  Labour  the  more 
that  by  good  works  you  may  make  sure  your  calling  and 
election."1 

Some  important  disputations  which  the  youthful  Univer- 
sity Professor  held  on  theses  and  "  paradoxa  "  formulated 
by  himself  prove  how  his  teaching  was  taking  ever  deeper 
root  at  Wittenberg  and  elsewhere.  The  story  of  these 
disputations  casts  light  on  his  peculiar  tactics,  viz.  to  meet 
every  kind  of  opposition  by  still  more  forcibly  and  defiantly 
advancing  his  own  propositions. 

2.  Disputations  on  man's  powers  and  against  Scholasticism 
(1516-17) 

In  September,  1516,  Luther  arranged  for  a  remarkable 
Disputation  to  be  held  at  Wittenberg  by  Bartholomew 
Bernhardi  of  Feldkirchen,  in  Swabia,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
latter's  promotion  to  be  Lecturer  on  the  Sentences.  From 
a  confidential  letter  of  Luther's  to  Johann  Lang, 
Prior  at  Erfurt,  we  learn  some  particulars  as  to  the  motive 
which  determined  the  choice  of  the  theses,  which  latter  are 
still  extant.  From  this  we  see  that  the  Disputation  was 
held  on  account  of  those  who  "  barked  "  at  Luther's  lectures. 
"  In  order  to  shut  the  mouths  of  yelping  curs,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  let  the  opinion  of  others  be  heard,"  the  theses 
on  man's  absolute  inability  to  do  what  is  good  were  pur- 
posely worded  in  a  most  offensive  form.  This  Disputation 
brought  over  Amsdorf,  hitherto  an  opponent,  to  Luther's 

1  James  ii.  22,  24,  26.  2  Peter  i.  10.  On  Luther's  later  denial  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  see  volume  iv.,  xxviii.  2.  In  this 
he  made  no  account  of  tho  critical  proof  of  the  traditional  ascription  of 
this  Epistle,  but  considered  it  merely  from  his  own  subjective  point  of 


side.  Amsdorf  sent  a  copy  of  the  theses  to  Erfurt  in 
order  to  elicit  the  opinion  of  the  professors  there.  But, 
fearing  lest  the  storm  he  foresaw  might  be  directed  against 
Luther,  he  deleted  the  superscription  bearing  his  name 
("  Sub  eximlo  viro  Martino  Luihero  Augustiniano,"  etc.). 
At  the  Disputation  Luther  presided,  a  fact  which  is  all  the 
more  significant  when  we  remember  that  he  was  not  at  that 
time  Dean. 

Among  the  theses  to  be  debated  one  runs  as  follows  : 
Man  is  absolutely  unable  by  his  own  unaided  efforts  to  keep 
the  commandments  of  God  ;  he  merely  seeks  his  own,  and 
what  is  of  the  flesh  ;  he  himself  is  "  vanity  of  vanities  " 
and  makes  creatures,  who  in  themselves  are  good,  also  to 
be  vain  ;  he  is  necessarily  under  the  dominion  of  sin,  "  he 
sins  even  when  doing  the  best  he  can  ;  for  of  himself  he  is 
unable  either  to  will  or  to  think."1 

It  is  not  surprising  that  theses  such  as  this  again  roused 
the  antagonism  of  the  followers  of  the  old  theology.  Some 
of  Luther's  former  colleagues  among  the  Erfurt  monks  con- 
sidered themselves  directly  challenged.  Trutfetter  and  Usin- 
gen,  two  esteemed  professors  at  Erfurt,  having  dared  to  point 
out  the  difference  between  these  theses  and  the  Catholic 
teaching  as  expressed  in  the  works  of  Gabriel  Biel,  Luther 
wrote  to  their  Superior,  Johann  Lang  :  "  Let  them  alone, 
let  your  Gabrielists  marvel  at  my  '  position  '  (i.e.  at  the 
theses),  for  mine  too  (i.e.  Biel's  Catholic-minded  supporters 
at  Wittenberg)  still  continue  to  be  astonished."  "  Master 
Amsdorf  formerly  belonged  to  them,  but  is  now  half  con- 
verted." "  But  I  won't  have  them  disputing  with  me  as  to 
whether  Gabriel  said  this,  or  Raphael  or  Michael  said  that. 
I  know  what  Gabriel  teaches  ;  it  is  commendable  so  long 
as  he  does  not  begin  speaking  of  Grace,  Charity,  Hope, 
Faith  and  Virtue,  for  then  he  becomes  a  Pelagian,  like 
Scotus,  his  master.  But  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  speak 
further  on  this  matter  here."2 

In  the  same  letter  he  deals  some  vigorous  blows  at  Gratian 
and  the  highly  esteemed  Peter  Lombard  ;  according  to  him 
they  have  made  of  the  doctrine  of  penance  a  torment  rather 
than  a  remedy  ;  they  took  their  matter  from  the  treatise 
*'  On  True  and  False  Penance,"  attributed  to  St;  Augustine ; 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  145  ff. 

2  Letter  of  1516,  probably  September,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  55. 


312  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

but  he  had  been  compelled  to  deny  that  this  "  stupid  and 
foolish  "  work  was  by  St.  Augustine.  It  is,  however,  quite 
certain  that  this  spurious  work  did  not  constitute  "  the 
chief  authority  for  the  mediaeval  doctrine  of  Penance,"  x 
neither  were  its  contents  so  untheological  as  we  are  expected 
to  believe. 

Bernhardi,  Luther's  very  devoted  pupil,  who  held  the 
Disputation  mentioned  above,  has  been  considered  by 
some  to  have  been  the  first  priest  of  the  evangelical  faith 
to  contract  matrimony.2  This,  however,  is  not  quite  correct 
as  others  preceded  him.  But  Bernhardi,  as  Provost  of 
Kemberg,  was  one  of  the  first  to  draw  this  practical  inference 
from  the  freedom  of  the  gospel. 

A  second  pupil,  Franz  Giinther  of  Nordhausen,  who  was 
chosen  by  Luther  to  conduct  in  the  following  year  a  Dispu- 
tation which  partook  still  more  of  the  nature  of  a  challenge, 
became  later  a  prominent  partisan  of  Luthcranism.  His 
Disputation  was  held  at  Wittenberg,  September  4,  1517, 
under  his  master's  presidency,  with  the  object  of  obtaining 
the  degree  of  Baccalaureus  Biblicus.  His  99  theses  faith- 
fully echo  Luther's  teaching,  particularly  his  antagonism  to 
Aristotle  and  Scholasticism.  The  theses  were  scattered 
abroad  with  the  object  of  making  converts.  At  Erfurt  and 
elsewhere  the  friends  of  the  new  opinions  to  whom  Luther 
despatched  the  theses  were  to  work  for  the  spread  of  the 
theological  revolution.  As  a  result  of  this  Disputation  his 
Erfurt  opponents  again  complained  that  Luther  was  too 
audacious,  that  he  was  overbearing  in  his  assertions  and 
was  flinging  broadcast  wicked  censures  of  the  Catholic 
doctors  and  their  teaching.  With  these  complaints,  how- 
ever, the  matter  ended,  no  one  daring  to  do  more. 

At  the  end  of  Giinther's  theses  the  following  words  occur  in 
print  :  "In  all  these  propositions  our  intention  was  to  say 
nothing,  and  we  believe  we  have  said  nothing,  which  is  not  in 
accordance  with  Catholic  doctrine  and  with  ecclesiastical  writers." 3 
Yet  in  these  prospositions  we  read  :  "  Man,  who  has  become  a 
rotten  tree,  can  will  and  do  only  what  is  evil.  .  .  .  Man's  will  is 

1  As  Enders  thinks,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  58. 

2  See  Feustking,  "  Das  Leben  des  ersten  verehelichten  evangelischen 
Predigers  B.  Bernhardi."    As  Enders  rightly  remarks,  he  was  not  really 
the    "  first    married    preacher "  ;     this    honour    belonging    to    Jakob 
Seydler. 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  228.    "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  321. 


not  free  but  captive  "  (thesis  5).  "  The  only  predisposition  to 
grace  is  the  eternal  election  by  God  and  predestination  "  (29). 
"  From  beginning  to  end  we  are  not  masters  of  our  actions  but 
servants  "  (39).  "  We  do  not  become  righteous  by  doing  what  is 
right,  but  only  after  we  have  become  righteous  do  we  perform 
what  is  right  "  (40).  "  The  Jewish  ceremonial  law  is  not  a  good 
law,  neither  are  the  Ten  Commandments,  and  whatever  is  taught 
and  commanded  with  regard  to  outward  observances  "  (82,  83). 
"  The  only  good  law  is  the  love  of  God  which  is  poured  forth  in 
our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  "  (84). 

The  following  will  suffice  to  give  an  idea  of  Giinther's  theses 
on  the  relation  of  Aristotle  to  Christian  philosophy  and  theology  ; 
"  Aristotle's  Ethics  almost  in  its  entirety  is  the  worst  enemy  of 
grace  "  (41).  "  It  is  not  merely  incorrect  to  say  that  without 
Aristotle  no  man  can  become  a  theologian ;  on  the  contrary,  we 
must  say  :  he  is  no  theologian  who  does  not  become  one  without 
Aristotle  "  (43,  44). 

At  Wittenberg  the  Disputation  called  forth  enthusiastic 
applause  among  both  professors  and  students,  and  the 
defender  was  unanimously  ("  uno  consensu  dominorum ") 
proclaimed  a  Bachelor.  So  deeply  was  Luther  concerned  in 
this  manifesto,  that  he  expressed  to  Lang  his  readiness  to 
go  to  Erfurt  and  there  personally  to  conduct  the  defence  of 
all  the  theses.  He  scoffs  at  those  who  had  called  them 
not  merely  paradoxical  but  kakodoxical  and  even  kakisto- 
doxical  (execrable).1  "  To  us,"  he  says,  "  they  can  only  be 
orthodox."  He  was  very  zealous  in  distributing  them  far  and 
wide,  and  asked  Christoph  Scheurl,  the  Humanist  of  Nurem- 
berg, to  whom  he  sent  some,  to  forward  a  copy  to  "  our 
Eck  .  .  .  who  is  so  learned  and  intellectual " ;  such  was  then 
his  opinion  of  his  future  adversary.2 

Scheurl,  and  no  doubt  Luther's  other  friends  also,  took 
care  to  spread  the  bold  theses.  This  Humanist,  who  was 
prejudiced  in  favour  of  Luther,  ventured  to  prophesy  a 
great  revolution  in  the  domain  of  Divinity.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  his  reply  to  Luther's  letter  he  greets  him  with 
the  wish,  that  "  the  theology  of  Christ  may  be  reinstated, 
and  that  we  may  walk  in  His  Law  !  "  3 

This  Disputation  at  Wittenberg  has  been  described  by 
Protestants  as  a  "  decisive  blow  struck  at  mediaeval 

1  Letter  of  September  4,  1517,  to  Johann  Lang,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1, 
p.  106. 

2  Letter  of  September  11,  1517,  to  Christoph  Scheurl.    Ibid.,  p.  109. 

3  Letter  of  November  3,    1517.     Ibid.,  p.    119:     "  Ad  Martinum 
Luder.    Christi  theologiam  restaurare  et  in  illius  lege  ambulare." 


314  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

doctrine. ' ' x  That  it  was  an  open  challenge  admits  of  no  doubt. 
Reticence  and  humility  were  not  among  Luther's  qualities. 
It  would  be  to  misrepresent  him  completely  were  we  to 
assign  to  him,  as  special  characteristics,  bashfulness, 
timidity  and  love  of  retirement ;  however  much  he  himself 
occasionally  claims  such  virtues  as  his.  On  the  other  hand, 
he  also  assures  us  that  no  one  can  say  of  him  that  he  wished 
the  theses  of  this  Disputation  to  be  merely  "  whispered  in 
a  corner." 

With  this  impulse  to  bring  his  new  doctrines  boldly 
before  the  world  may  be  connected  his  taking,  about  this 
time,  in  one  of  his  letters  the  name  Eleutherius,  or  Free- 
spirited.  This  was  his  way  of  rendering  into  Greek  his 
name  Luther,  agreeably  with  the  customs  of  the  time. 

Only  a  few  weeks  after  the  second  Disputation  which  we 
have  been  considering,  he  came  forward  with  his  Indulgence 
theses  against  Tetzel,  of  which  the  result  was  to  be  another 
great  Disputation.  Disputations  seemed  to  him  a  very 
desirable  method  of  arousing  sympathy  for  his  ideas ; 
these  learned  encounters  with  his  opponents  gave  him  a 
good  opportunity  for  displaying  his  fiery  temper,  his  quick- 
wittedness,  his  talent  as  an  orator,  his  general  knowledge,  and 
particularly  his  familiarity  with  the  Bible. 

But  this  is  not  yet  the  place  to  discuss  the  Indulgence 
theses  against  Tetzel. 

The  better  to  appreciate  the  state  of  Luther's  mind  at  the 
time  when  he  was  becoming  settled  in  his  new  theological 
principles,  we  may  be  permitted  to  consider  here,  by  antici- 
pation, another  great  Disputation  on  faith  and  grace,  that, 
namely,  of  Heidelberg,  which  took  place  after  the  outbreak 
of  Luther's  hostilities  with  Tetzel.  In  comparison  with  these 
questions,  the  Indulgence  controversy  was  of  less  importance, 
as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  see  ;  it  was  in  reality  an  acci- 
dental occurrence,  though  one  pregnant  with  consequences, 
and,  as  it  turned  out,  the  most  decisive  of  all.  The  common 
idea  that  the  quarrel  with  Tetzel  was  the  real  starting-point 
of  Luther's  whole  conflict  with  the  Church  is  utterly  unten- 
able. 

1  Plitt,  "  Luthers  Leben,"  Leipzig,  1883,  p.  69. 


THE  HEIDELBERG  DISPUTATION    315 

3.  Disputation  at  Heidelberg  on  Faith  and  Grace.     Other 
Public  Utterances 

The  Disputation  at  Heidelberg  took  place  on  April  26, 
1518,  about  six  months  after  the  nailing  up  of  the  theses 
against  Tetzel.  A  Chapter  of  the  Augustinian  Congregation 
held  in  that  town  afforded  the  opportunity  for  this  Disputa- 
tion. 

To  make  use  of  the  Chapters  for  such  learned  celebrations 
was  nothing  unusual,  but  the  selection  of  Luther  to  conduct 
the  theological  discussion,  at  a  time  when  his  teaching  on 
Grace  and  his  Indulgence  theses  had  aroused  widespread 
comment  and  excitement,  and  when  an  examination  of  his 
conduct  was  pending  in  the  Order,  was  very  significant. 
Among  the  delegates  of  the  priories  present  at  the  Chapter, 
all  of  them  chosen  from  the  older  and  more  respected  monks, 
there  was  clearly  a  majority  in  favour  of  Luther.  Another 
proof  of  this  fact  is,  that  at  the  Chapter,  Johann  Lang,  who 
was  entirely  of  Luther's  way  of  thinking,  was  chosen  to 
succeed  him  as  Rural  Vicar  on  the  expiry  of  Luther's  term  of 
service.  Staupitz  was  confirmed  in  his  dignity,  though  his 
own  attitude  and  his  persistent  blind  prejudice  in  favour  of 
Luther  must  have  been  known  to  all.  It  appears  that 
Luther's  controversy  with  Tetzel  was  not  even  discussed  in 
the  Chapter  ;  x  at  any  rate,  we  hear  nothing  whatever  of  it, 
nor  even  of  any  difficulties  being  raised  as  to  Luther's 
position  in  the  much  more  important  question  of  justifica- 
tion, although  strict  injunctions  had  already  been  sent  to  the 
Order  by  the  Holy  See  to  place  a  check  on  him,  and  dissuade 
him  from  the  course  he  was  pursuing.2 

If,  moreover,  we  bear  in  mind  the  character  of  the  theses 
at  this  Disputation,  which  went  far  beyond  anything  that 
had  yet  appeared,  but  were  nevertheless  advocated  before 
all  the  members  assembled,  we  cannot  but  look  upon  this 
unhappy  Chapter  as  the  shipwreck  of  the  German  Augus- 
tinian Congregation.  At  the  next  Chapter,  which  was  held 
after  an  interval  of  two  years,  i.e.  sooner  than  was  customary, 
Staupitz  received  a  severe  reprimand  from  the  General  of  the 

1  Kolde,  "  Die  deutsche  Augustinerkongregation,"  p.  315. 

2  Kalkoff,   "  Forschungen  zu  Luthers  rSmischem   Prozess,"    1905, 
p.   44  seq.     Pastor,    "  History    of    the  Popes,"    English    translation, 
volume  vii.,  p.  361  ff. 


316  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Order  and  at  last  laid  down  his  office  as  Superior  of  the 
Congregation.1  His  weakness  and  vacillation  had,  however, 
by  that  time  already  borne  fruit. 

Leonard  Beyer,  an  Augustinian,  another  of  Luther's 
youthful  pupils,  was  chosen  by  him  to  defend  the  theses  at 
Heidelberg  under  his  own  supervision.  The  Disputation 
was  held  in  the  Lecture-room  of  the  Augustinian  monastery 
in  the  town.  Among  the  numerous  guests  present  were 
the  professors  of  the  University  of  Heidelberg.  They  were 
not  of  Luther's  way  of  thinking,  and  rather  inclined  to  join 
issue  in  the  discussion,  though  in  general  their  demeanour 
was  peaceable  ;  one  of  the  younger  professors,  however, 
in  the  course  of  the  dispute  voiced  his  disagreement  in  an 
interruption :  "If  the  peasants  hear  that,  they  will 
certainly  stone  you." 

Among  those  present,  four  young  theologians,  who  at  a 
later  date  went  over  to  the  new  faith  and  became  its  active 
promoters,  followed  with  lively  interest  the  course  of  the 
discussion,  in  which  Luther  himself  frequently  took  part ; 
these  were  Martin  Bucer,  an  eloquent  Dominican,  afterwards 
preacher  at  Strasburg  and  a  close  friend  of  Luther  ;  Johann 
Brenz,  a  Master  of  Philosophy,  who  subsequently  worked 
for  the  new  teaching  in  Swabia ;  Erhard  Schnepf,  who 
became  eventually  a  preacher  in  Wiirttemberg,  and  Theobald 
Billicanus,  whom  the  theologians  at  Heidelberg  Avho 
remained  faithful  to  the  Church  summoned  to  be  examined 
before  them  on  account  of  his  lectures,  and  who  then  was 
responsible  for  the  apostasy  of  the  town  of  Nordlingen.  The 
Disputation  at  Heidelberg  had  a  great  influence  on  all 
these,  and  rendered  them  favourable  to  Luther. 

The  first  named,  Martin  Bucer,  full  of  enthusiasm  for 
Luther,  informed  a  friend,  that  at  the  end  of  the  Disputation 
he  had  completely  triumphed  over  all  his  opponents  and 
roused  in  almost  all  his  hearers  admiration  of  his  learning, 
eloquence,  and  fearlessness.2 

If,  however,  we  consider  the  theses  from  the  theological 

1  Kolde,  p.  327. 

2  Bucer  to  Beatus  Rhenanus,  May  1,  1518,  in  the  Correspondence 
of    Beatus   Rhenanus,   ed.   Horawitz   and   Hartf elder,   Leipzig,    1866, 
p.  106  f.     Also  in  "  Relatio  historica  de  disputatione  Heidelbergensi  ad 
Beatum  Rhenanum,"  printed  in  the  "Introductio  in  hist,  evang."  by 
D.  Gerdesius,  Groningen,  1744,  Supp.,  p.  176.     Cp.  "  Luthers  Werke,' 
Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  352.     "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  385. 


THE  HEIDELBERG  DISPUTATION    317 

standpoint,  we  are  able  to  understand  better  the  impression 
which  Bucer  in  the  same  letter  states  they  made  on  others, 
namely,  that  this  new  theology  of  Wittenberg,  which 
exalted  itself  above  Scholasticism  and  the  learning  of 
previous  ages,  and  even  above  the  teaching  of  the  whole 
Church  from  the  time  of  her  Divine  institution,  justified  the 
most  serious  apprehensions  and  indictments. 

Twenty-eight  theses  had  been  selected  from  theology  and 
twelve  from  philosophy.  The  very  first  theological  proposition 
declared  in  Luther's  bold,  paradoxical  style,  that  the  law  of  God 
was  unable  to  assist  a  man  to  righteousness,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
was  a  hindrance  to  him  in  this  respect.1  Some  of  the  other 
propositions  were  hardly  less  strong  :  Man's  works,  however  good 
they  may  be,  are  probably  never  anything  but  mortal  sins  (3)  ; 
after  sin  free  will  is  will  only  in  name,  and  when  a  man  has  done 
the  best  he  is  capable  of,  he  commits  a  mortal  sin  (13).  If  these 
assertions  recall  some  which  we  have  heard  before,  they  are 
followed  by  others  expressing,  in  the  most  startling  manner,  his 
theory  on  grace.  "  He  is  not  righteous  who  performs  many 
works,  but  he  who,  without  works,  believes  firmly  in  Christ  " 
(25).  "  The  law  says,  '  do  this  '  and  it  is  never  done  ;  Grace  says 
'  believe  in  Him  (Christ)  '  and  everything  is  already  done  "  (26). 
"  Man  must  altogether  despair  of  himself  in  order  to  be  fit  to 
receive  the  grace  of  Christ  "  (18). 

In  the  proofs,  the  text  of  which  is  still  extant  and  was  probably 
printed  together  with  the  theses,  we  read  other  statements 
which  remove  all  doubt  as  to  the  seriousness  of  the  propositions 
put  forth  :  "  Righteousness  is  infused  by  faith,  for  we  read  :  '  the 
just  man  liveth  by  faith  '  (Rom.  i.  17)  .  .  .  not  as  though  the 
just  man  did  not  perform  any  works,  but  because  his  works  are 
not  the  cause  of  righteousness,  but  righteousness  is  the  cause  of 
the  works.  Grace  and  faith  are  infused  without  any  work  on  our 
part,  and  then  the  works  follow."2 

Luther  in  one  passage  of  these  "  proofs  "  addresses  to  himself 
the  only  too- well-founded  objection  :  "  Therefore  we  will  be 
content  without  virtue  as  we  on  our  part  are  able  only  to  sin  !  "3 
But  instead  of  solving  this  objection  in  a  proper  form,  he  answers 
rhetorically  :  "  No,  fall  on  your  knees  and  implore  grace,  put 
your  hope  in  Christ  in  Whom  is  salvation,  life  and  resurrection. 
Fear  and  wrath  are  wrought  by  the  law,  but  hope  and  mercy 
by  grace."4 

Underlying  the  whole  Disputation,  we  perceive  that  antagon- 
ism to  the  fear  of  God  as  the  Judge  of  transgressions  against  the 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  353.    "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  385. 

2  Concl.  25,  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  364.     "Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1, 
p.  402. 

3  Concl.  16,  "  Quid  igitur  faciemua  ?    Vacabimus  otio,  quia  nihil  nisi 
peccatum  facimus." 

*  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  360.    "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  398. 


318  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

law,  which  the  reader  has  before  remarked  in  Luther  ;  that  fear 
which  Catholic  teaching  had  hitherto  represented  as  the  beginning 
of  conversion  and  justification. 

Utterances  drawn  from  that  mysticism  into  which  he  had 
plunged  and  the  language  of  which  he  had  at  that  time  made  his 
own,  are  also  noticeable.  He  speaks  at  the  Disputation  of  the 
annihilation  through  which  a  man  must  pass  in  order  to  arrive  at 
the  certainty  of  salvation  (a  road  which  is  assuredly  only  for  the 
few,  whereas  all  stand  in  need  of  certainty)  :  "  Whoever  is  not 
destroyed  and  brought  back  to  nothingness  by  the  cross  and 
suffering,  attributes  to  himself  works  and  wisdom.  But  whoever 
has  passed  through  this  annihilation  does  not  pursue  works,  but 
leaves  God  to  work  and  to  do  all  in  him  ;  it  is  the  same  to  him 
whether  he  performs  works  or  not ;  he  is  not  proud  of  himself 
when  he  does  anything,  nor  despondent  when  God  does  not  work 
in  him."1  He  then  proceeds,  describing  the  absolute  passivity 
of  his  mysticism  as  the  foundation  of  the  process  of  salvation  : 
"  He  [who  is  to  be  justified]  knows  that  it  is  enough  for  him  to 
suffer  and  be  destroyed  by  the  cross  in  order  to  be  yet  more 
annihilated.  This  is  what  Christ  meant  when  He  said  (John 
iii.  7)  :  '  Ye  must  be  born  again.'  If  Christ  speaks  of  '  being  born 
again,'  it  necessarily  follows  that  we  must  first  die,  i.e.  feel  death 
as  though  it  were  present." 

Besides  the  antagonism  to  true  and  well-grounded  fear,  and 
the  mystical  veneer,  there  is  a  third  psychological  element 
which  must  be  pointed  out  in  the  Heidelberg  Theses,  viz. 
the  uncalled-for  emphasis  laid  on  the  strength  of  con- 
cupiscence and  man's  inclination  to  what  is  evil,  and  the 
insufficient  appreciation  of  the  means  of  grace  which  lead 
to  victory.  This  view  of  the  domination  of  evil,  which 
must  ultimately  be  favourable  to  libertinism,  accompanies 
'the  theoretical  expression  and  the  practical  realisation  of 
his  system. 

In  the  Heidelberg  Disputation  we  find  in  the  proof  of  thesis  13, 
already  referred  to  :  "  It  is  clear  as  day  that  free  will  in  man, 
after  Adam's  Fall,  is  merely  a  name  and  therefore  no  free  will  at 
all,  at  least  as  regards  the  choice  of  good  ;  for  it  is  a  captive,  and 
the  servant  of  sin  ;  not  as  though  it  did  not  exist,  but  because 
it  is  not  free  except  for  what  is  evil."2  This  Luther  pretends  to 
find  in  Holy  Scripture  (John  viii.  34,  36),  in  two  passages  of  St. 
Augustine  "  and  in  countless  other  places."  He  undertakes  to 
prove  this  in  a  special  note,  by  the  fact  that,  according  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  man  is  unable  during  life 
to  avoid  all  faults,  that  he  must  fall  without  the  assistance  of 
grace,  and  that,  according  to  2  Timothy  ii.  26,  he  is  held  captive 
by  the  "  snares  of  the  devil."  "  The  wicked  man  sins,"  he  says, 

1  Concl.  24.  2  Cp.  above,  p.  202  ft. 


"THE  QUIETING  OF  CONSCIENCES"   319 

"  when  he  does  what  is  good."  "  The  righteous  man  also  sins  in 
his  good  works,"  according  to  the  words  of  the  Apostle  :  "  But  I 
see  another  law  in  my  members  fighting  against  the  law  of  my 
mind  "  (Rom.  vii.  23).  God  works  everything  in  us  ;  but  just  as 
the  carpenter,  however  capable  he  may  be,  cannot  work  properly 
with  a  jagged  axe,  so,  in  spite  of  God's  work,  sin  still  remains, 
owing  to  the  imperfection  of  the  tool  He  makes  use  of,  i.e.  on 
account  of  the  sinfulness  which  permeates  us.1 

"  The  mercy  of  God  consists  in  this,  that  He  has  patience  with 
us  in  spite  of  our  sins  and  graciously  accepts  our  works  and  our 
life  notwithstanding  their  complete  worthlessness.  .  .  .  We 
escape  His  Judgment  through  His  mercy  [to  which  we  cling 
through  faith  alone],  not  by  our  own  righteousness.  .  .  .  God 
excuses  our  works  and  makes  them  pardonable  ;  He  supplies 
what  is  wanting  in  us,  and  thus  He  is  our  righteousness."2 

"  How  is  it  possible  that  a  '  servant  of  sin  '  should  do  anything 
else  but  sin  ?  How  can  a  man  perform  a  work  of  light  when  he 
is  in  darkness,  a  work  of  wisdom  when  he  is  a  fool,  the  work  of  a 
whole  man  when  he  is  lying  there  sick,  etc.  ?  Therefore  all  that 
a  man  does  is  the  work  of  the  devil,  of  sin,  of  darkness  and 
foolishness."  "  Why  do  we  say  that  concupiscence  is  irresistible  ? 
Well,  just  try  to  do  what  you  can,  but  without  concupiscence  ! 
Of  course,  this  is  impossible.  Thus  your  nature  does  not  keep 
the  law.  If  you  do  not  keep  this,  then  still  less  can  you  keep  the 
law  of  charity."3 

The  crown  of  all  this  is  found  in  certain  propositions 
from  another  of  Luther's  Disputations  (the  fourth)  held  at 
Wittenberg  in  1518,  of  which  the  eminently  characteristic 
title  is  :  "  For  the  ascertaining  of  the  Truth  and  for  the 
Quieting  of  anxious  Consciences."  Here  we  find  this 
exhortation  :  "  Cast  yourself  with  a  certain  despair  of 
your  own  self,  more  particularly  on  account  of  the  sins  of 
which  you  are  ignorant,  with  confidence  into  the  abyss  of 
the  mercy  of  God,  Who  is  true  to  His  promises.  The  sum 
total  is  this  :  The  Just  man  shall  live  by  faith,  not,  however, 
by  works  or  by  the  law."  4  Such  is  the  theology  which  he 
calls  the  "  Theology  of  the  Cross."5  The  Church,  with  a 
past  of  fifteen  centuries  behind  her,  also  taught  that  the  just 
man  must  live  by  faith,  but  by  this  she  meant  a  real  faith 

1  In  the  Explicatio  condusionia  VI.,  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  367, 
where  the  editor  says  in  a  note  :    "  Martin  Bucer  testifies  in  his  letter 
to  Beatus  Rhenanus  on  May  1,  1518,  that  this  comparison  was  made 
by  Luther  in  the  Disputation."     See  p.  74,  n.  9. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  370. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  371,  374. 
•  Ibid.,  p.  633. 

6  Disput.,  Heidelberg,  an.  1518,  thes.  24.  Cp.  thes.  20.  "Werke." 
Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  362  f.  Cp.  above,  p.  235. 


320  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

which  leads  to  the  love  of  the  cross,  which  expresses  itself  in 
submission,  in  salutary  fear,  in  a  striving  after  what  is  good 
and  which  bears  in  itself  the  seeds  of  charity.  She  thus 
exhorted  the  faithful  to  penance,  the  practice  of  good  works 
and  a  practical  embracing  of  the  cross.  That  was  her 
"  Theology  of  the  Cross." 

The  three  more  important  Disputations  considered  above 
were  designated  by  Luther  himself  as  the  "  beginning  6f  the 
evangelical  business."  He  gave  the  title  Initium  negocii 
evangelici  to  a  collection  of  the  theses  debated  at  these 
Disputations  which  appeared  in  print  at  Wittenberg  in 
1538.1  It  is  significant  that  the  theses  against  Tetzel  and 
on  Indulgences  have  no  place  in  this  collection  of  the  earliest 
"  evangelical  "  documents. 

While  Luther  was  on  his  wray  back  from  Heidelberg,  in  a 
letter  to  Trutfetter  his  former  professor,  he  submitted 
certain  thoughts  on  his  own  theological  position,  which  may 
well  be  deemed  his  programme  for  the  future.  To  this  worthy 
man,  who  failed  to  share  his  views  and  had  given  him  timely 
warning  of  his  errors,  he  says  :  "  To  speak  plainly,  my 
firm  belief  is  that  the  reform  of  the  Church  is  impossible 
unless  the  ecclesiastical  laws,  the  Papal  regulations, 
scholastic  theology,  philosophy  and  logic  as  they  at  present 
exist,  are  thoroughly  uprooted  and  replaced  by  other 
studies.  I  am  so  convinced  of  this  that  I  daily  ask  the  Lord 
that  the  really  pure  study  of  the  Bible  and  the  Fathers  may 
speedily  regain  its  true  position."2 

In  this  remarkable  letter,  which  is  a  curious  mixture  of 
respect  and  disputatious  audacity,  Luther  admits  that,  on 
account  of  his  teaching  on  grace,  he  is  already  being  scolded 
in  public  sermons  as  a  "  heretic,  a  madman,  a  seducer  and 
one  possessed  by  many  devils  "  ;  at  Wittenberg,  however, 
he  says,  at  the  University  all,  with  the  exception  of  one 
licentiate,  declare  that  "  they  had  hitherto  been  in  ignorance 
of  Christ  and  His  gospel."  Too  many  charges  were  brought 
against  him.  Let  them  "  speak,  hear,  believe  all  things  of 
him  in  all  places,"  he  would,  nevertheless,  go  forward  and 
not  be  afraid.  Here  he  does  not  pass  over  his  theses  against 
Tetzel  in  silence  ;  they  had,  he  says,  been  spread  in  a  quite 

1  Cp.  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  143,  n. 

2  Letter  of  May  9,  1518,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  187. 


ATTITUDE  TO   THE   CHURCH       321 

unexpected  manner,  whereas  with  his  other  theses  this  had 
not  been  the  case  ;  this  he  regretted  as  otherwise  he  would 
have  "  expressed  them  more  clearly."  When  publishing  his 
Indulgence  theses  he  had  had  the  truth  concerning  "  the 
grace  of  Christ  "• — which  he  also  defended  at  Heidelberg — 
much  at  heart,  for  the  result  of  the  abuse  of  the  system  of 
Indulgences  was,  that  there  was  scarcely  anyone  who  did 
not  hope  to  obtain  the  great  gift  of  the  "  grace  of  God  "  by 
means  of  a  paltry  Indulgence,  a  disgraceful  reversal  of  the 
true  order  of  things. 

4.  Attitude  to  the  Church 

The  foundations  of  the  principal  erroneous  doctrines  of 
the  new  theology  were  already  laid  at  a  time  when  Luther 
was  still  unmistakably  asserting  the  authority  of  the  Church 
and  the  Papacy  and  the  duty  of  submission  incumbent  on 
all  who  desired  to  be  true  Christians. 

Neither  before  his  deviation  from  the  Church's  doctrine 
nor  whilst  the  new  views  were  growing  and  becoming  fixed, 
did  he  go  astray  with  respect  to  the  binding  nature  of  the 
Church's  teaching  office,  or  seek  to  undermine  the  Divine 
pre-eminence  of  the  Holy  See.  Such  a  course  would,  it  is 
true,  have  been  logical,  as  not  one  of  the  doctrines  which 
the  Church  proposes  for  belief  can  be  assailed  without  the 
wrhole  of  her  doctrinal  edifice  being  affected,  and  without 
calling  in  question  both  her  infallibility  and  her  rightful 
authority.  Only  subsequent  to  the  Leipzig  Disputation,  at 
which  Luther  unreservedly  denied  the  doctrinal  authority 
of  General  Councils,  do  we  find  him  prepared  to  abandon 
the  traditional  view  with  regard  to  the  Church  and  her 
teaching  office. 

The  formal  principle  of  Lutheranism  dates  only  from  this 
denial.  The  determining  factor  is  no  longer  ecclesiastical 
authority,  but  the  private  judgment  of  the  individual,  i.e. 
the  understanding  of  Holy  Scripture- — now  considered  as 
the  only  source  of  religious  knowledge- — acquired  under  the 
guidance  of  Divine  enlightenment.  Even  then  Luther 
was  in  no  hurry  to  formulate  any  clear  theory  of  the  Church, 
of  the  Communion  of  the  Faithful,  of  the  oneness  of  Faith, 
and  of  its  mouthpiece.  On  the  contrary,  he  frequently 
returns  then  and  even  later,  as  will  be  seen  below,  to  his 


322  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

earlier  conception  of  the  Church,  so  natural  was  it  to  him  and 
to  his  time,  so  indispensable  did  her  claims  appear  to  him, 
and  so  logically  did  they  result  from  the  whole  connection 
between  Divine  Revelation  and  the  scheme  of  salvation. 

How  are  we  to  explain  this  contradiction  so  long  present 
in  Luther's  mind,  viz.  his  abandonment  of  the  principal 
dogmas  of  the  Church  and,  at  the  same  time,  his  emphatic 
assertion  of  the  Church's  authority  ?  Chiefly  by  his  lack  of 
theological  training,  also  by  his  confusion  of  mind  and 
deficiency  in  real  Church  feeling  ;  then  again  by  his  excess 
of  imagination,  by  his  pseudo-mysticism,  and  above  all  by 
his  devotion  to  his  own  ideas.  Moreover,  as  we  know, 
the  two  conflicting  tendencies  did  not  dwell  at  peace  within 
him  but  were  responsible  for  great  restlessness  and  trouble 
of  mind.  Had  he  been  more  in  living  touch  with  the  faith 
and  spirit  of  the  Church,  he  would  doubtless  have  recognised 
the  urgent  necessity  of  choosing  between  an  absolute 
abandonment  of  his  new  theological  views  and  a  definite 
breach  with  the  Church  of  his  fathers.  In  explanation  of 
the  confusion  of  his  attitude  to  the  Church  we  must  call  to 
mind  what  has  already  been  said,  how,  owing  to  the  evils 
rampant  in  the  Church,  he  had  not  had  the  opportunity  of 
seeing  that  Divine  institution  at  its  best,  a  fact  which  may 
have  helped  to  weaken  in  his  mind  the  conception  of  her 
sublime  mission  and  the  binding  nature  of  her  ancient  faith. 
He  remained  in  the  Church,  just  as  he  remained  in  the 
religious  state,  though  its  ideals  had  become  sadly  obscured 
in  his  eyes. 

In  its  place  he  built  up  for  himself  an  imaginary  world, 
quite  mistaking  the  true  state  of  affairs  with  regard  to  his 
own  position.  He  fancied  that  the  representatives  of  the 
Church  would  gradually  come  round  to  his  point  of  view, 
seeing  that  it  was  so  well  founded.  He  thought  that  the 
Papacy,  when  better  informed,  would  never  be  able  to 
condemn  the  inferences  he  had  made  from  the  clear  Word 
of  God,  and  his  precious  discovery  for  the  solacing  of  every 
sinner. 

Perhaps  he  also  sought  to  shelter  himself  behind  the 
divergent  opinions  entertained  by  the  theologians  of  that 
day  with  regard  to  justification.  Several  details,  as  yet 
undefined,  of  this  dogma,  were  then  diversely  explained, 
though  no  doubt  existed  regarding  the  essentials.  The 


ATTITUDE   TO   THE  CHURCH       323 

views  propounded  by  members  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
show  how  many  side  questions  in  this  department  called  for 
definition  and  learned  research  before  the  Council  could 
arrive  at  the  classical  formulation  of  the  whole  matter.1  No 
true  theologian,  however,  owing  to  want  of  distinctness  in  the 
minor  details  of  the  dogma  was,  like  Luther,  prepared  to 
cast  it  overboard,  or  to  demand  its  entire  revision. 

In  the  case  of  this  strangely  constituted  man  inward 
discernment  alone  counted  for  anything. 

With  him  this  outweighed  far  too  easily  all  the  claims  of 
external  authority,  and  how  could  it  be  otherwise  when, 
already  at  an  early  stage  of  his  career,  while  perusing  the 
Holy  Scriptures  he  had  felt  the  Spirit  of  God  in  his  new 
ideas?  We  have  a  picture  of  his  feelings  in  his  letter  to 
Spalatin  of  January  18,  1518,  in  which  he  says,  the  principal 
thing  when  studying  the  Book  of  Books  is  to  "  despair  of  our 
own  learning  and  our  own  sagacity."  "  Be  confident  that 
the  Spirit  will  instil  the  sense  into  your  mind.  Believe  this 
on  my  experience.  Therefore  begin,  starting  with  a  humble 
despair,  to  read  the  Bible  from  the  very  commencement."  2 
There  is  here  no  reference  to  the  traditional  interpretation 
handed  down  from  the  first  centuries  through  the  Fathers 
and  the  theologians  ;  in  place  of  this  each  one  is  invited  to 
seek  for  enlightenment  under  the  guidance  of  that  light 
which  he  assumes  to  be  the  "  Spirit." 

And  yet  Luther's  teaching  with  regard  to  the  authority  of  the 
Universal  Church  is,  according  to  a  sermon  preached  in  1516,  as 
follows  :  "  The  Church  cannot  err  in  proclaiming  the  faith  ;  only 
the  individual  within  her  is  liable  to  error.  But  let  him  beware 
of  differing  from  the  Church  ;  for  the  Church's  leaders  are  the 
walls  of  the  Church  and  our  fathers  ;  they  are  the  eye  of  the  body, 
and  in  them  we  must  seek  the  light."3  As  the  idea  has  not  yet 
dawned  upon  him  that  the  whole  body  of  the  bishops  had  strayed 
from  the  path  of  truth,  he  does  not  consider  it  necessary  first  to 
seek  where  the  true  Church  is  ;  he  simply  finds  it  there  where 
Peter  presides  in  his  successors.  No  private  illumination,  no 
works  however  great,  justify  a  separation  from  the  Papacy.4  In 
accordance  with  this  principle,  even  in  1518,  amidst  the  storm 
of  excitement  and  not  long  before  the  printing  of  his  sermon  on 
excommunication,  he  assures  Staupitz,  his  Superior,  with  the 
utmost  confidence  :  "  I  shall  hold  the  Church's  authority  in  all 

1  Cp.  Mohler,  "  Symbolik,"  pp.  100,  154  ff. 

2  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  142. 

"  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  3,  p.  170. 
a  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  69.    See  above,  p.  34  f. 


324  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

honour  "  ;  it  is  true,  he  goes  on  to  say  :  "I  have  no  scruple, 
Reverend  Father,  about  going  forward  with  my  exploration  and 
interpretation  of  the  Word  of  God.  The  summons  [to  Rome]  and 
the  menaces  which  have  been  uttered  do  not  move  me.  I  am 
suffering,  as  you  know,  incomparably  worse  things  which  allow 
me  to  pay  but  little  heed  to  such  as  are  temporal  and  transitory."1 
The  woes  which  he  repeatedly  utters  against  heretics,  and  of 
which  we  have  already  given  a  striking  example  (above,  p.  225), 
are  very  startling,  coming  from  his  lips.  In  his  exposition  of  the 
Psalms  he  points  a  warning  finger  at  pride,  the  source  of  all 
heresies  :  "  Out  upon  our  madness,  how  often  and  how  greatly, 
do  we  fall  into  this  fault  !  All  the  heretics  fell  through  inordinate 
love  of  their  own  ideas.  Hence  it  was  not  possible  but  that  what 
was  false  should  appear  to  them  true,  and,  what  was  true,  false. 
.  .  .  Wisdom,  in  its  original  purity,  can  exist  only  in  the  humble 
and  meek."2 

It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  the  passages  in  which  Luther, 
in  his  early  days,  asserts  with  absolute  conviction  the 
various  doctrines  of  the  Church  which  at  a  later  date  he  was 
to  attack. 

It  may  suffice  to  take  as  an  example  the  doctrine  of 
Indulgences  which  was  soon  to  become  the  centre  of 
the  controversy  started  by  his  theses  on  this  subject. 
Luther  presents  the  doctrine  quite  clearly  and  correctly 
in  a  sermon  on  Indulgences  preached  in  1516. 3  Here  he 
makes  his  own  the  general  Catholic  teaching,  notwith- 
standing that  it  clashes  with  his  ideas  on  grace  and  justifica- 
tion, a  fact  of  which  he  assuredly  was  aware. 

"  An  Indulgence,"  he  says,  "  is  the  remission  of  the  temporal 
punishment  which  the  penitent  would  have  to  undergo,  whether 
imposed  by  the  priest  or  endured  in  Purgatory  ;  formerly,  for 
instance,  seven  years  [of  penance]  were  imposed  in  this  way  for 
certain  sins."  "  Therefore  we  must  not  imagine  that  our  salva- 
tion is  straightway  secured  when  we  have  gained  an  Indulgence," 
as  it  merely  remits  the  temporal  punishment.  "  Those  alone 
obtain  complete  remission  of  the  punishment  who,  by  real  con- 
trition and  confession,  are  reconciled  with  God."  "  The  souls  in 
Purgatory,  as  the  Bull  expressly  states,  profit  by  the  Indulgence 
only  so  far  as  the  power  of  the  Keys  of  Holy  Church  extend  "  ; 
"per  applicationem  intercessions, "  as  he  says,  i.e.  to  use  the 
common  theological  expression,  " per  modum  suffragii."*  "Hence 
the  immediate  and  complete  liberation  of  souls  from  Purgatory 
is  not  to  be  assumed."  "  The  Indulgences  are  [i.e.  are  based  on] 
the  merits  of  Christ  and  His  saints  and  are  therefore  to  be 

1  Letter  of  September  1,  1518,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  223. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  4,  p.  83. 

8  Ibid.,  1,  p.  65  ff.  *  Ibid.,  p.  65  ff. 


ATTITUDE  TO  THE   CHURCH       325 

accepted  with  due  veneration."  "  However  the  case  may  stand 
with  regard  to  the  abuses  to  be  apprehended  in  the  use  of  in- 
dulgences," so  he  ends  his  lengthy  and  important  explanation, 
"  the  offer  and  acceptance  of  Indulgences  is  of  the  greatest  utility, 
and  perhaps  in  our  times  when  God's  mercy  is  so  greatly  despised, 
it  is  His  Will  to  bestow  His  favours  upon  us  by  means  of  these 
Indulgences.  .  .  .  Indulgences  must,  however,  never  lead  us,  of 
the  Church  militant,  to  a  false  sense  of  security  and  to  spiritual 
indolence."  The  speaker  goes  much  more  fully  into  detail  on 
many  difficult  questions  than  could  be  done  in  a  sermon  to-day. 
On  certain  subtle  points  of  theological  controversy  regarding 
Indulgences,  which  had  as  yet  not  been  definitely  settled  among 
the  learned,  he  admits  his  ignorance  and  his  doubts.  One  thing, 
however,  is  certain,  namely,  that  he  had  no  right  to  assert,  as  he 
did  later,  that  the  age  was  steeped  in  the  deepest  ignorance  with 
regard  to  the  nature  of  Indulgences,  merely  because  some  of  these 
more  recondite  questions  had  not  been  fully  solved.  His  own 
sermon  just  quoted  is  a  refutation  of  the  charge. 

In  this  sermon  he  also  attacks  the  abuses  which  in  those  days 
were  connected  with  the  system  of  Indulgences,  particularly  the 
disorders  which  prevailed  at  the  sermons  and  collections  made  for 
Indulgences  granted  in  support  of  various  pious  works  and 
usually  undertaken  by  certain  noted  popular  preachers.  In  one 
of  his  strong  generalisations  he  thus  addressed  his  hearers  at  the 
very  commencement :  "  Indulgences  have  become  the  dirty 
tool  of  avarice  !  Who  is  there  who  seeks  the  salvation  of  souls 
by  their  means  and  not  rather  the  profit  of  his  purse  ?  The 
behaviour  of  the  Indulgence-preachers  makes  this  plain  ;  for 
these  commissaries  and  their  delegates  do  nothing  in  their 
sermons  but  praise  the  Indulgences  and  urge  the  people  to  give 
donations,  without  instructing  them  as  to  what  an  Indulgence  is."1 

At  that  time  John  Tetzel  was  making  a  great  stir  with 
the  preaching  of  the  Indulgence  granted  by  Pope  Leo  X  for 
the  church  of  St.  Peter  in  Rome. 

Luther's  inward  falling  away  from  the  teaching  of  the 
Church  and  his  whole  state  of  mind  had  made  him  ripe  for 
a  great  public  struggle.  His  action  with  regard  to  Tetzel 
was  merely  the  result  of  what  had  gone  before,  and  the 
consequences  of  the  controversy  were  vastly  more  important 
than  the  actual  point  in  dispute. 

Many  years  later,  when  the  circumstances  appeared  to 
him  very  different  from  what  they  really  were,  Luther 
related  that  he  had  lived  in  humble  retirement  in  his 
monastery,  studying  Holy  Scripture  and  following  his  calling 
as  Doctor  of  the  Word  of  God  until  he  was  drawn  by  force 
into  the  controversy,  and  called  forth  into  the  arena  of 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  65. 


326  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

public  life.  "  I  was  completely  dead  to  the  world  till  God 
deemed  the  time  had  come  ;  then  Squire  Tetzel  excited  me 
with  the  Indulgence  and  Doctor  Staupitius  spurred  me  on 
against  the  Pope."  l 

Then  gradually,  so  he  says,  his  "  other  preaching  followed," 
i.e.  that  against  "  holiness  by  works,"  and  set  free  those  who 
had  become  "  quite  weary  "  of  Popery  with  its  self -righteous- 
ness ;  this  "  other  preaching  "  was  as  follows  :  "  Christ 
says :  Be  at  rest ;  thou  art  not  pious,  I  have  done  all  for 
thee,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee."  2  Nevertheless,  for  some 
years,  so  he  assures  us,  he  continued  to  practise  "  in  ignor- 
ance "  the  works  of  idolatry  and  unbelief  in  the  monastery, 
those  works  to  which  "  everyone  clung  "  ;  3  then  at  last  he 
cut  himself  adrift  and  laid  aside  the  monk's  habit  "  to 
honour  God  and  shame  the  devil."  4 


1  "  Colloquia,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  188. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  48,  p.  401.  3  Ibid.,  49,  p.  300. 

*  "  Colloquia,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  183.    These  words  are  there  placed 
in  the  year  1523. 


CHAPTER    IX 

THE  INDULGENCE  THESES  OF  1517  AND  THEIR  AFTER-EFFECTS 

1.  Tetzel's  preaching  of  the  Indulgence ;  the  95  theses 

A  MEMBER  of  the  Dominican  Order  who  would  otherwise 
have  remained  but  little  known  in  history  obtained  through 
Luther  a  world-wide  name. 

Everyone  has  heard  of  the  Indulgence-preacher,  John 
Tctzel,  the  active  and  able  popular  speaker,  to  whom 
Albert  of  Brandenburg,  Archbishop  and  Elector  of  Mayence, 
entrusted  the  proclamation  of  the  Indulgence  granted  by 
Leo  X  for  the  building  of  the  new  Church  of  St.  Peter.  In 
1516  and  1517  he  made  the  Indulgence  known  throughout 
the  dioceses  of  Magdeburg  and  Halberstadt,  appealing 
everywhere  for  funds  to  carry  out  the  great  enterprise  in 
Rome.  What  he  taught  was,  in  the  main,  the  same  as  Luther 
had  previously  taught  regarding  Indulgences  (see  above, 
p.  324) ;  he,  like  all  theologians,  was  careful  to  point  out 
that  an  Indulgence  was  to  be  considered  merely  as  a  re- 
mission of  the  temporal  punishment  due  to  sin,  but  not  of 
the  actual  guilt  of  sin.1  He  declared,  quite  rightly,  that  the 
erection  of  the  Church  of  St.  Peter  was  a  matter  of  common 
interest  to  the  whole  Christian  world,  and  that  the  donations 
towards  it  were  to  be  looked  upon  as  part  of  the  pious 
undertakings  and  good  works  which  were  always  required 

1  Many  of  the  erroneous  Protestant  notions  as  to  the  doctrine  of 
Indulgences  might  be  removed  by  a  glance  at  any  Catholic  handbook 
of  theology.  See,  for  instance,  Hurter,  "  Theol.  dogmat.,"  ed.  11  (1903), 
t.  3,  p.  499  seq.,  509,  where,  for  example,  the  expression  "  relaxatio 
pcence  et  culpce,"  which  has  shocked  so  many  moderns,  is  explained  in 
the  correct  historical  and  theological  sense,  reference,  for  instance, 
being  made  to  the  article  by  N.  Paulus  (partly  against  Th.  Brieger)  in 
the  "Zeitschrift  fur  kath.  Theol.,"  23,  1899,  p.  48  ff,  "  Johann  von 
Paltz  iiber  Ablass  und  Reue."  The  German  Augustinian  Paltz  is  an 
authentic  witness  to  the  Catholic  view  at  that  time.  "  The  guilt  is 
remitted,"  he  says,  "  by  virtue  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance  which  is 
here  introduced,  and  the  punishment  by  virtue  of  the  Indulgence 
which  is  here  dispensed."  "  Celifodina,"  fol.  x.,  1,  in  Paulus,  p.  51,  n.  4. 

327 


328  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

by  the  Church  as  one  of  the  conditions  for  gaining  an 
Indulgence.  At  the  same  time,  in  accordance  with  the 
teaching  and  practice  of  the  Church,  he  demanded  of  all,  as 
an  essential  preparation  for  the  Indulgence,  conversion  and 
change  of  heart  together  with  a  good  confession.1 

The  proclamation  of  this  Indulgence  on  behalf  of  St. 
Peter's — which  was  preached  throughout  almost  the  whole 
of  the  Christian  world- — in  the  great  dioceses  of  Mayence 
and  Magdeburg,  had  been  entrusted  by  Leo  X,  in  1514,  to 
Archbishop  Albert  of  Brandenburg,  who  held  both  these 
sees. 

This  respected  but  worldly  minded  Elector  had  made  the 
customary  payment,  in  this  instance  a  very  heavy  one,  to 
the  Roman  Court  for  his  confirmation  in  the  see  of  Mayence 
and  in  return  for  the  pallium.  He  had  also,  in  compliance 
with  an  appeal  made  by  the  Papal  Dataria,  presented 
to  the  Holy  See  ten  thousand  ducats,  which  he  had  raised 
through  J;he  Fuggers  of  Augsburg,  in  order  to  secure  the 
above  Indulgence  for  his  dioceses  ;  in  return  for  this  the  Pope 
had  made  over  to  him,  once  for  all,  one-half  of  the  total 
proceeds  of  the  Indulgence.  With  this  he  hoped  to  repay 
his  creditors,  the  Fuggers.2  The  details  of  this  affair  will 
be  dealt  with  later,  but  we  may  here  remark  that  it  was 
a  transaction  which  certainly  was  unworthy  of  so  sacred  a 
cause  as  that  of  an  Indulgence,  and  which  can  only  be 
explained  by  the  evil  customs  of  that  day,  the  pressure 
applied  by  Albert's  agents,  and  the  influence  of  the  avaricious 
Florentine  party  at  the  Papal  Court.  Though  perhaps  not 
actually  simoniacal  it  certainly  cannot  be  approved. 

We  cannot  here  refrain  from  drawing  attention  to  a  fact 
which  stands  for  all  time  as  a  solemn  warning  to  the  pastors 
of  the  Church.  Just  as  the  sight  of  the  corruption,  both 
ecclesiastical  and  moral,  in  Rome  under  Julius  II,  and  the 
remembrance  of  an  Alexander  VI,  had  filled  Luther  with 
bitter  prejudice  on  his  journey  to  Italy,  so  the  extremely 
worldly  and  regrettable  action  of  the  Curia,  and  episcopal 
toleration  of  actual  abuses  in  the  promulgation  of  the 
Indulgence,  supplied  him  with  welcome  matter  for  his 

1  See  below,  ix.  2. 

2  A.  Schulte,  "  Die  Fugger  in  Rom  1495-1523,"  2  vols.,  Leipzig, 
1904.    W.  Schors,  "  Die  Mainzer  Erzbischofswahl  und  der  Ablass  vora 
Jahre  1514,"  in  the  Innsbruck  "  Zeitschrif t  f  iir  kath.  Theol.,"  31,  1907, 
pp.  267-302.    For  details  on  this  matter  see  the  next  section. 


TETZEL'S   PREACHING  329 

charges  and  with  a  deceitful  pretext  for  the  seducing  of 
countless  souls. 

Luther  learned  many  discreditable  particulars  con- 
cerning the  arrangement  arrived  at  between  Rome  and 
Mayence  for  the  preaching  of  the  Indulgence  and  the  use  to 
which  half  of  the  spoils  was  to  be  applied.  What  provoked 
Luther  and  many  others  was  not  only  the  abuses  which 
prevailed  in  the  use  of  Indulgences,  about  which  there  was 
much  grumbling,  and  the  constantly  recurring  collections 
which  were  a  burden  both  to  the  rulers  and  their  people,  but 
also  the  tales  current  regarding  the  behaviour  of  the  monk 
acting  as  Indulgence-preacher.  Tetzel  did  not  exactly 
shine  as  an  example  of  virtue,  although  the  charges  against 
his  earlier  life  are  as  baseless  as  the  reproach  of  gross  ignor- 
ance. He  wras,  as  impartial  historians  have  established, 
forward  and  audacious  and  given  to  exaggeration.  In  his 
sermons,  mainly  owing  to  his  popular  style  of  address,  he 
erred  by  using  expressions  only  to  be  styled  as  strained  and 
ill-considered.  He  even  employed  phrases  of  a  repulsive 
nature  in  his  attempts  to  extol  the  power  of  the  Indulgence 
preached  by  him.  In  addition  to  this,  in  explaining  how 
the  Indulgence  might  be  applied  to  the  departed,  he  made 
his  own  the  wrong,  exaggerated  and  quite  unauthorised 
opinions  of  certain  isolated  theologians,  putting  them  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  real  teaching  of  the  Church.  Such 
private  opinions,  it  is  true,  had  also  found  their  way  into 
some  of  the  official  instructions  on  Indulgences.  At  any 
rate,  Tetzel,  with  misplaced  zeal,  mingled  what  was  true 
with  what  was  false  or  uncertain.  The  great  concourse  of 
people  who  gathered  to  hear  the  celebrated  preacher  also 
led  to  many  disorders,  more  particularly  when,  as  was  the 
case  at  Annabcrg,  the  occasion  of  the  yearly  fair  was  turned 
to  account  in  order  to  publish  the  Indulgence. 

Shortly  after  the  sermon  already  spoken  of  Luther 
preached  again  at  Wittenberg  on  the  Indulgence  and  its 
abuses,  but  without  expressly  referring  to  Tetzel.  Another 
sermon  on  the  same  subject  was  delivered  at  the  Castle  in 
the  presence  of  the  Elector  on  the  occasion  of  the  exposition 
of  the  rich  collection  of  relics  belonging  to  the  Castle  Church. 
He  still  openly  admitted  the  value  of  Indulgences,  but 
more  and  more  he  was  disposed  to  find  fault  wTith  the  formal- 
ism into  which  the  system  had  degenerated.  Later  he 


330  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

declared  that  he  had  begun,  already  in  1516,  "  to  dispute 
about  Indulgences  and  to  write  against  the  Pope  "  ;  only  the 
first  part  of  this  clause  is,  however,  true,  and  that  only  in  a 
certain  sense.  He  had  as  yet  written  nothing  against  the 
Primacy  or  against  Indulgences  as  such.  There  is  also  no 
foundation  for  the  statement  that,  as  soon  as  he  heard 
from  Staupitz  (at  Grimma)  of  Tetzel's  behaviour,  he 
exclaimed  :  "  Please  God,  I  will  knock  a  hole  in  his  drum." 

It  was  on  the  question  of  Indulgences  that  the  wider 
controversy  around  his  new  doctrines,  which  were  now 
complete,  was  to  commence.  In  October,  1517,  he  decided 
to  make  a  public  attack  on  Tetzel.  This  he  did  when,  on 
the  Eve  of  All  Saints,  October  31,  1517,  he  nailed  up  his  95 
theses  on  Indulgences  on  the  door  of  the  Castle  Church  at 
Wittenberg.  As  All  Saints  was  the  Titular  Feast  of  the 
Church  l  and  as,  on  that  day,  numbers  would  be  flocking 
thither  to  celebrate  the  festival,  he  counted  on  securing 
wide  publicity  for  his  theses.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  by 
this  means,  and  thanks  to  the  efforts  of  Luther  and  his 
friends,  the  printed  theses  were  soon  known  everywhere. 
Their  very  boldness  and  impudence  also  contributed  to 
their  popularity.  They  were  soon  being  read  throughout 
Germany,  exciting  general  surprise  and  even  admiration  of 
the  Monk's  language.  The  number  of  those  who  sincerely 
applauded  the  theses,  or  who,  at  any  rate,  approved  of  the 
greater  part  of  their  contents,  was  much  greater  than  has 
been  generally  believed. 

The  theses,  of  course,  contained  things  which  were 
incomprehensible  to  non-theologians,  but  the  very  tone  in 
which  they  were  written  showed  all  the  stupendous  im- 
portance of  the  step  which  had  been  taken.  The  more 
timid  were  pacified  by  an  introductory  explanation  of  the 
author  embodied  in  the  paper  containing  the  theses,  which 
stated  that  the  propositions  did  not  determine  anything 
definite,  but  that  "  out  of  love  and  zeal  for  the  ascertaining 
of  the  truth "  a  public  Disputation  on  these  questions 
would  be  held  by  Luther  at  Wittenberg,  and  that  those  who 
were  precluded  from  taking  a  personal  part  in  the  debate 
might  state  their  objections  in  writing.2 

1  Not  the  anniversary  of  its  dedication.      Cp.   N.   Miiller  in  the 
"  Archiv  fur  Reformationsgesch.,"  (6),  1909,  p.  184,  n.  4. 

2  "  Luthers  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  529.    For  the  theses  see  also, 
Erl.  ed.,  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  285  seq. 


THE  INDULGENCE  THESES        331 

If  we  examine  the  theses  more  closely  and  watch  the 
behaviour  of  their  author  after  they  were  made  public,  there 
appears  to  be  no  doubt  that  they  were  considered  by  him  as 
settled  beforehand  and  not  merely  as  tentative  propositions. 
Many  of  them,  from  the  theological  point  of  view,  go  far 
beyond  a  mere  opposition  to  the  abuse  of  Indulgences. 
Luther,  stimulated  by  contradiction,  had  to  some  extent 
altered  his  previous  views  on  the  nature  of  Indulgences,  and 
brought  them  more  into  touch  with  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  his  erroneous  theology. 

A  practical  renunciation  of  the  doctrine  of  Indulgences,  as 
it  had  been  held  up  to  that  time,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
theses,  where  Luther  states  that  Indulgences  have  no  value 
in  God's  sight,  but  are  merely  to  be  regarded  as  the  re- 
mission by  the  Church  of  the  canonical  punishment  (theses 
5,  20,  21,  etc.).  This  destroys  the  theological  meaning  of 
Indulgences,  for  they  had  always  been  considered  as  a 
remission  of  the  temporal  punishment  of  sin,  but  as  a 
remission  which  held  good  before  the  Divine  Judgment- 
seat.1  In  some  of  the  theses  (58,  60)  Luther  likewise 
attacks  the  generally  accepted  teaching  with  regard  to  the 
Church's  treasury  of  grace,  on  which  Indulgences  are  based. 
Erroneous  views  concerning  the  state  of  purgation  of  the 
departed  occur  in  some  of  the  propositions  (18,  19,  29). 
Others  appear  to  contain  what  is  theologically  incorrect, 
and  connected  with  his  opinion  regarding  grace  and  justifica- 
tion ;  this  opinion  is  not,  however,  clearly  set  forth  in  the 
list  of  theses. 

Many  of  the  statements  are  mere  irritating,  insulting  and 
cynical  observations  on  Indulgences  in  general,  no  distinction 
being  made  between  what  was  good  and  what  was  perverted. 
Thus,  for  instance,  thesis  66  declares  the  "  treasures  of 
Indulgences  "  to  be  simply  nets  "  in  which  the  wealth  of 
mankind  is  caught."  Others  again  scoff  and  mock  at  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  as,  for  example,  thesis  86.  "  Why 
does  not  the  Pope  build  the  Basilica  of  St.  Peter  with  his 
own  money  and  not  with  that  of  the  poverty-stricken 
faithful,  seeing  that  he  possesses  to-day  greater  riches  than 
the  most  wealthy  Crcesus  ?  " 

In  order  that  a  certain  echo  of  the  author's  mystical 

1  Cp.  Nos.  19,  20  and  21  of  the  41  propositions  of  Luther  condemned 
in  1520. 


332  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Theologia  Crucis  may  not  be  wanting  even  in  this  public 
document,  the  last  two  theses  contain  a  protest  against  the 
formalism  of  the  system  of  Indulgences  :  "  Let  Christians 
be  exhorted  to  follow  Christ,  their  Head,  through  suffering 
and  through  the  pains  of  death  and  hell,"  "  in  order  the 
better  to  reach  heaven  they  should  put  their  trust  in  much 
tribulation  rather  than  in  the  certainty  of  peace." 

The  95  theses  spread  rapidly  through  Germany,  adding 
dangerously  to  the  already  widespread  dissatisfaction  with 
the  Church  and  the  Pope. 

To  Scultetus,  Bishop  of  Brandenburg,  within  whose  jurisdic- 
tion Wittenberg  lay,  and  to  others,  too,  Luther  continued 
to  explain  the  matter  as  though  the  theses  were  merely 
intended  to  serve  as  the  basis  for  a  useful  Disputation,1 
which,  however,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  never  took  place.  He 
assured  the  chief  pastor  of  Brandenburg  of  his  absolute 
submission  and  his  readiness  to  follow  the  Catholic  Church  in 
everything.  At  the  same  time,  however,  he  stated  quite 
clearly  that,  in  his  opinion,  nothing  could  be  advanced 
against  his  theses  either  from  Holy  Scripture,  Catholic 
doctrine  or  canon  law,  with  the  exception  of  the  utterances 
"  of  some  few  canonists,  who  spoke  without  proofs,  and  of 
some  of  the  scholastic  Doctors  who  cherished  similar  views, 
but  who  also  were  unable  to  demonstrate  anything  "  ;  it 
was  not,  of  course,  for  him  to  give  any  decision,  but  he 
might  surely  be  permitted  to  open  a  discussion  by  means 
of  the  Disputation. 

Relying  on  his  skill  at  debate,  he  looked  forward  to  a 
victory  over  Tetzel  and  to  an  opening  for  commencing  the 
struggle  against  the  abuses  connected  with  the  preaching  of 
the  Indulgence.  Here  we  may  recall  the  words  of  his  pupil 
Oldecop,  already  quoted  before  :  "  He  spoke  in  unmeasured 
terms  against  it  [i.e.  Indulgence-preaching],  with  great 
impetuosity  and  audacity."  He  started  the  controversy, 
being,  says  Oldecop,  "  by  nature  proud  and  audacious."2 

Carried  away  by  the  astounding  and  ever-growing 
applause  of  those  who  were  otherwise  loyal  to  the  Church, 
and  deaf  to  the  warnings  and  admonitions  given  him, 
Luther  launched  among  the  people  a  German  work  entitled 

1  Letter  to   Bishop   Hieronymus   Scultetus   of  May   22,    1518   (?), 
"  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  150  :    "  Inter  quce  sunt  de  quibus  dubiio,  nonnulla 
iynoro,  aliqua  et  nego."    P.  151  :    "  Dispute  non  assero,"  etc. 

2  "  Chronik,"  ed.  K.  Euling,  p.  48  f.     Cp.  above,  p.  280. 


THE   INDULGENCE  THESES        333 

"  A  Sermon  on  Indulgences  and  Grace,"  which  contains 
statements  yet  more  vehement  and  seditious.  Almost  at 
the  same  time,  and  in  the  greatest  haste,  he  put  on  paper  the 
weighty  "  Resolutions "  on  his  theses,  written  in  Latin 
for  the  benefit  of  the  more  learned.  The  latter  appeared  in 
print  in  the  spring  of  1518. 

Meanwhile,  at  the  beginning  of  1518,  the  Archbishop  of 
Mayence  had  forwarded  to  Rome  an  account  of  the  move- 
ment which  had  been  started  and  of  the  Monk's  theses. 
As  a  result  of  this  step  the  Pope,  Leo  X,  on  February  3, 
instructed  P.  Gabriele  della  Volta,  Vicar  to  the  General  of 
the  Augustinians,  to  seek  to  turn  Luther  aside  from  his 
erroneous  views  by  letter  and  by  the  admonitions  of  honest 
and  learned  men  ;  delay  might  fan  the  spark  into  a  flame 
which  it  might  be  impossible  to  extinguish.1 

There  is  no  doubt  that  instructions  to  this  effect  were 
despatched  by  Volta  to  Staupitz,  and  probably  other 
measures  were  contemplated  at  the  approaching  Chapter  of 
the  German  Augustinian  Congregation  at  Heidelberg  ;  the 
calming  of  the  storm  was  a  duty  incumbent  primarily  on 
the  Order  itself,  and  the  Holy  See  accordingly  decided  to 
act  through  Luther's  immediate  superiors.  Unfortunately, 
nothing  whatever  is  known  of  any  steps  taken  by  the  Order 
at  this  early  stage.  At  the  Heidelberg  Chapter,  which  was 
held  towards  the  end  of  April  (above,  p.  315)  the  election  of 
a  new  Vicar-General  of  the  Congregation  to  which  Luther 
belonged  had  to  take  place  ;  a  new  Rural  Vicar  had  also  to 
be  elected  in  place  of  Luther,  as  the  latter  had  now  com- 
pleted his  term  of  office.  It  seems  plain  that  Staupitz  and 
the  large  party  who  favoured  Luther  wished  to  act  as  gently 
as  possible  and  not  to  interfere  in  the  movement  beyond 
making  the  necessary  change  in  the  person  of  the  Rural 
Vicar. 

After  Luther  had  received  the  summons  to  Heidelberg, 
the  Elector  wrote  to  Staupitz  a  letter  dated  Friday  in 

1  Cp.  Pastor,  "History  of  the  Popes,"  volume  vii.,  English  trans- 
lation, p.  3d.  Kalkoff,  "ForschungenzuLuthersromischemProzess/1 
Rom.,  1905,  p.  44  f.,  and  "  Zu  Luthers  romischem  Prozess  :  Das 
Verfahren  des  Erzbischofs  v.  Mainz  gegen  Luther,"  in  "  Zeitschrift 
fur  Kirchengesch.,"  31,  1910,  pp.  48-65.  Cp.  ibid.,  p.  368  ff.,  on  the 
Dominicans.  Both  authors  should  be  consulted  for  the  subsequent 
history  of  Rome's  intervention.  The  Papal  letter  in  Bembi,  Epislolce 
Leonis  X,  1.  16,  n.  18. 


334  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Easter  week,  with  a  request  to  see  that  Luther,  on  account 
of  his  lectures,  "  shall  return  here  at  the  very  earliest  and  not 
be  delayed  or  detained."  1  We  cannot  infer  from  this  or 
from  the  Elector's  letter  of  safe  conduct  for  Luther  himself, 
that  measures  against  him  were  anticipated  at  the  Chapter. 
These  documents  merely  prove  the  exceptional  favour 
which  Luther  enjoyed  with  the  reigning  Prince. 

Luther  started  from  Wittenberg  on  April  11.  Being  a  monk 
he  had  to  make  the  journey  on  foot  as  far  as  Wurzburg  ; 
after  having  been  hospitably  entertained  by  the  Bishop, 
Lorenz  von  Bibra,  who  was  very  well  disposed  towards  him, 
he  proceeded  to  Heidelberg  by  coach,  together  with  Johann 
Lang  and  some  other  monks.  The  Chapter  re-elected 
Staupitz  and  made  Johann  Lang  Rural  Vicar  in  Luther's 
stead,  a  choice  which,  as  already  hinted,  expressed  approval 
rather  than  disapproval  of  what  Luther  had  done.  It  was 
also  very  significant  of  the  position  adopted  by  the  Augus- 
tinian  Congregation,  that  Luther  should  have  been  per- 
mitted to  preside  at  the  Heidelberg  Disputation.  He 
advanced  the  theses,  which  have  already  been  discussed 
(above,  p.  317),  containing  the  denial  of  free  will,  i.e.  the 
most  important  element  of  his  new  teaching,  and  entrusted 
their  defence  to  Master  Leonard  Beyer,  an  Augustinian  of 
Wittenberg,  who  conducted  the  debate  in  the  presence  of  the 
assembled  Chapter  and  professors  of  Heidelberg  University, 
who  had  also  been  invited.  It  is  remarkable  that  the 
question  of  Indulgences,  which  was  so  greatly  agitating 
the  minds  of  all,  was  not  touched  upon  in  the  Disputation. 
Perhaps  it  was  thought  better,  from  motives  of  prudence, 
to  avoid  this  subject  altogether  at  Heidelberg. 

At  the  beginning  of  May  Luther  returned  to  Wittenberg 
by  way  of  Wurzburg  and  Erfurt.  He  took  advantage  of  his 
stay  at  Dresden  to  preach  a  sermon  before  Duke  George 
and  his  Court  on  July  25,  1518.  In  this  sermon  he  spoke 
in  such  a  way  of  "  the  true  understanding  of  the  Word  of 
God,"  of  the  "  Grace  of  Christ  and  eternal  Predestination," 
and  of  the  overcoming  of  the  "  Fear  of  God,"  that  the  Duke, 
who  was  a  staunch  adherent  of  the  Church,  was  much 
displeased,  and  often  declared  afterwards  that  such  teaching 
only  made  men  presumptuous.  The  account  of  the  sermon 
and  of  Duke  George's  opinion  is  first  found  in  the"  Origines 
1  Kolde,  "  Die  deutsche  Augustinerkongregation,"  p.  313. 


THE   "RESOLUTIONS"  335 

Saxonicce"  1  of  George  Fabricius,  who  died  in  1571.  But 
Luther  himself  refers  to  the  opposition  excited  in  several 
quarters  by  a  controversial  sermon  he  preached  there, 
and  remarks,  cynically :  such  fault-finders  only  speak 
from  an  idle  desire  for  praise  ;  these  gossips  want  everything 
and  are  able  to  do  nothing,  they  are  a  "  serpent's  brood," 
"  masked  faces  "  whom  I  despise.2 

On  his  return  to  Wittenberg  he  devoted  himself  to  finishing 
the  Resolutions  on  the  Indulgence  theses.  On  August  21 
he  sent  the  first  printed  copy  to  Spalatin. 

These  Latin  Resolutiones  disputationis  de  virtute  indul- 
gentiarum,  which  dealt  exclusively  with  the  defence  of  the 
95  theses,  were  more  hostile  in  tone  towards  the  whole 
system  of  Indulgences  than  any  of  his  previous  utterances. 
They  show  Luther's  fiery  temper  and  his  state  of  irritation 
even  more  plainly  than  the  theses  themselves.  In  them  his 
new  teaching  on  faith  and  grace  was  for  the  first  time 
launched  on  the  public  in  unmistakable  outline.  Even 
abroad  the  learned  were  drawn  into  the  movement  by  the 
Latin  publication  which  brought  the  matter  within  their 
range. 

Together  with  his  Resolutions,  Luther  published  two 
letters,  very  submissive  in  tone,  addressed,  one  to  the  Bishop 
of  Brandenburg,  as  Ordinary  of  Wittenberg,  and  the  other 
to  Pope  Leo  X.  To  the  Pope  he  said  that  he  had  ventured 
to  address  himself  to  him  because  he  had  learned  that  some 
persons  at  Rome  were  attempting  to  blacken  his  reputation, 
as  though  he  were  infringing  the  power  of  the  Keys  of 
the  successor  of  St.  Peter.  He  explained  the  reason  of  the 
controversy  from  his  own  point  of  view  and  declared  :  "I 
cannot  recant."  In  the  same  letter,  however,  he  asserts 
his  readiness  to  listen  to  Leo's  voice  "  as  to  the  Voice  of 
Christ,  who  presides  in  him  and  speaks  through  him  "  ;  one 
thing  only  he  asks,  viz.  that  the  Pope  will  deal  with  him  just 

1  "  Origines   illustr.    stirpis   Saxonicce  1.   7,"    lenae,    1597,    p.    859. 
Seckendorf,   in  his   "  Comment,   de  Lutheranismo,"  relates  the  same 
from  Fabricius.     Both,   however,   make  the  mistake  of  placing  the 
event  a  year  too  early.    N.  Paulus,  in  the  "  Histor.-polit.  Blatter,"  137, 
1906,  p.  51  f.,  doubts  the  credibility  of  the  story,  because  Fabricius  is 
devoid  of  the  critical  spirit.     It  is  not  clear  whether  Luther  refers  to 
some  other  sermon. 

2  To  Spalatin,  January  14,  1519,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  349.     For 
further   particulars  with  regard  to  the  Dresden  visit,  which  has  been 
so  much  misrepresented,  see  below,  ix.  4. 


336  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

as  he  pleases.  "  Enliven  me,  kill  me,  call  me  back,  confirm 
me,  reject  me,  just  as  it  pleases  you  !  "  1  In  the  Resolutions, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  read  :  "It  makes  no  impression  on 
me  what  pleases  or  does  not  please  the  Pope.  He  is  a  man 
like  other  men.  There  have  been  many  Popes  to  whom  not 
only  errors  and  vices,  but  even  enormities  (monstra)  were 
pleasing.  I  attend  to  the  Pope  as  Pope,  i.e.  as  he  speaks 
in  the  laws  of  the  Church,  or  when  he  decides  in  accordance 
with  them,  or  with  a  Council,  but  not  when  he  speaks  out  of 
his  own  head."  2 

At  a  later  date  he  did  not  make  any  secret  of  the  weakness 
of  so  ambiguous  a  position.  On  one  occasion  in  later  years 
when  looking  back  upon  the  commencement  of  the  struggle, 
he  said  he  had  begun  the  controversy  "as  an  unreflecting 
and  stupid  Papist,"  that  he  had  been  drawn  into  the 
business  by  "  his  own  foolishness,"  that  his  "  weakness  and 
inconsequence  "  had  been  deplorably  exhibited,  seeing  that 
he  then  still  worshipped  the  Pope  ;  before  this  Lord  of 
Heaven  and  Earth,  he  writes,  everything  still  trembled, 
and  he,  the  little,  monk,  more  like  a  corpse  than  a  man,  had 
only  dared  to  advance  with  lamentable  uncertainty  and 
fear.3 

In  the  same  passage,  he  says :  "  I  was  certainly  not  glad  and 
confident  at  the  outset."  "  What  my  heart  suffered  in  the 
first  and  second  years,  how  I  lay  on  the  ground,  yea,  almost 
despaired,  of  that  they  [my  rivals,  the  fanatics]  know 
nothing,  though  they  were  happy  to  fall  upon  the  Pope  after 
he  had  been  severely  wounded  [by  me].  They  have  sought 
to  take  this  honour  to  themselves,  and,  for  all  I  care,  they 
are  welcome  to  it."  "  They  are  ignorant  of  the  Cross  and  of 
Satan  "  ;  but  I  only  attained  "  to  strength  and  wisdom 
through  death  agonies  and  combats."  . 

While  Luther  was  superintending  the  printing  of  the 
Resolutions  at  Wittenberg  he  was  at  the  same  time  engaged 
on  other  works. 

Johann  Eck  had  replied  to  his  Indulgence  theses  by  the 
so-called  "  Obelisci,"  which  Luther  met  with  the  "  Aster- 
isci,"  and  as  Tetzel,  for  his  part,  had  issued  a  refutation  of 
the  sermon  on  Indulgence  and  Grace,  Luther  brought  out  a 

1  May  30,  1518  (?),  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  200  f.  Weim.  ed.,  1, 
p.  527  ff. 

"  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  2,  p.  220.     Weim.  ed.,  p.  582,  Concl.  26. 
9  "Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  4,  p.  328  seq.,  in  a  Preface  to  his  Disputations. 


ON  EXCOMMUNICATION  337 

work   in    reply,    entitled    "  Freedom    of    the    Sermon    on 
Indulgence  and  Grace." 

Fearing  that  the  Pope  would  excommunicate  him,  Luther 
preached  a  sermon  to  the  inhabitants  of  Wittenberg  in  the 
early  summer  of  1518,  possibly  on  May  16,  on  the  power  of 
excommunication  ;  what  he  there  put  forth  excited  wide- 
spread comment  and  irritation.  This  sermon  he  issued  in 
print  in  August,  but  in  an  amended  form.  In  it  he  says 
excommunication  is  invalid  in  the  case  of  one  who  honestly 
asserts  the  truth  ;  nevertheless,  it  must  be  obeyed.  He 
blames  the  all  too  frequent  use  of  excommunication,  as 
many  good  Churchmen  had  done  before  him.  It  had  been 
recognised  and  taught  from  Patristic  times  that  unjust 
excommunication  did  not  deprive  the  excommunicate  of 
a  part  in  the  inward  life  of  the  Church  (anima  ecclesice). 
This  Luther  emphasises  for  his  own  party  purposes,  but 
without  as  yet  setting  up  "  a  new  view  of  the  nature  of  the 
Church." 

He  says,  in  a  letter  to  his  elderly  friend  Staupitz,  that, 
owing  to  the  action  of  his  adversaries,  "  a  new  flame  "  would 
surely  be  kindled  by  this  sermon,  though  he  had  extolled  the 
power  of  the  Pope  in  it,  as  was  fitting  ;  he  declares  that  he 
is  the  persecuted  party ;  "  but  Christ  still  lives  and  reigns 
yesterday,  to-day  and  for  ever.  My  conscience  tells  me  I 
have  taught  the  truth  ;  but  it  is  just  this  which  is  hated 
whenever  its  name  is  mentioned.  Pray  for  me  that  I  may 
not  rejoice  overmuch  nor  be  over-confident  in  myself  in  this 
trouble."  He  trusts  to  triumph,  by  printing  the  sermon 
referred  to,  overall  those  who  had  listened  to  it  with  jealousy, 
and  maliciously  misrepresented  it.  Yet  his  mood  is  by  no 
means  one  of  unmixed  joy ;  he  hints  in  the  same  letter  to 
Staupitz  at  mysterious  interior  sufferings  which  weigh  upon 
him  "  incomparably  more  heavily,"  so  he  says,  than  the 
fear  of  any  measures  Rome  may  take.  At  the  same  time 
he  is  quite  carried  away  by  the  idea  that  he  must,  at  any 
cost,  fight  against  the  contempt  which  the  Romanists  are 
heaping  upon  the  Kingdom  of  Christ.1 

Meanwhile,  in  March,  1518,  complaints  had  again  been 
carried  to  Rome  by  some  Dominicans.  Towards  the  middle 
of  June  fresh  official  steps  were  taken  by  Rome  against 
Luther's  person,  this  time  without  the  intervention  of  the 

1  Sept.  1,  1518,  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  223. 
I.— z 


338  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Order.  The  course  of  these  proceedings  has  been  made 
plain  by  recent  research.  The  Papal  Procurator  Fiscal, 
Mario  de  Perusco,  raised  a  formal  charge  against  the  monk 
on  the  suspicion  of  spreading  heresy.  By  order  of  the  Pope, 
the  preliminary  examination  was  conducted  by  the  Bishop 
of  Ascoli,  Girolamo  Ghinucci,  as  Auditor-General  for  suits 
in  the  Apostolic  Camera,  while  Silvester  Mazzolini  of  Prierio 
(Prierias),  the  Magister  S.  Palatii,  who,  like  all  Mayors  of  the 
Apostolic  Palace,  belonged  to  the  Dominican  Order,  was 
entrusted  with  the  task  of  perming  a  learned  opinion  on  the 
questions  involved. 

As  Prierias  had  already  made  a  study  of  the  Indulgence 
theses,  he,  as  he  himself  says,  took  only  three  days  to  draw 
up  the  opinion,  which,  moreover,  he  did  not  intend  to  stand 
as  an  actual  theological  refutation.  It  was  at  once  printed, 
being  entitled  "  In  prcesumptuosas  M.  Lutheri  conclusiones 
de  potestate  papce  dialogus."  The  work  was  not  free  from 
exaggerations  and  gratuitous  insults. 

At  the  beginning  of  July,  1518,  Luther  was  summoned  to 
appear  within  sixty  days  at  Rome  to  stand  his  trial. 
Ghinucci  and  Prierias  sent  the  summons  to  Cardinal  Cajetan, 
who  was  then  stopping  at  Augsburg,  in  order  that  he  might 
forward  it  to  the  Wittenberg  Professor.  Prierias's  pamphlet 
accompanied  it,  and  Luther  received  both  together  on 
August  7.  He  said  at  a  later  date  in  his  Table-Talk,  alluding 
to  the  work  of  the  Mayor  of  the  Apostolic  Palace,  that  the 
despatch  from  Rome  had  stirred  his  blood  to  the  utmost,  as 
he  had  then  realised  that  the  matter  was  deadly  earnest, 
since  Rome  was  inexorable. 

The  very  next  day,  with  many  contemptuous  and  dis- 
affected remarks  on  the  citation,  he  set  about  inducing  the 
Elector  to  use  his  influence  with  the  Holy  See  in  order  that 
judges  might  be  appointed  to  try  the  case  in  Germany  ;  he 
hoped  to  be  thereby  spared  the  dreaded  journey  to  Rome. 
It  was  at  that  time  that  he  published  the  sermon  on  excom- 
munication referred  to  above.  On  the  day  following  the 
receipt  of  the  summons  he  set  to  work  on  a  pamphlet  in 
reply  to  the  Dialogus  of  Prierias,  which  appeared  at  the 
end  of  August.1  This  Latin  Responsio  he  finished  in  two 
days,  thus  beating  Prierias,  as  he  triumphantly  informs 
him.  It  is  arrogant  and  insulting  in  tone,  vindicates  all  the 
1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  647  ff. 


AGAINST  PRIERIAS  339 

theses  one  by  one,  and  asserts  some  of  the  errors  contained 
in  them  in  still  stronger  terms  than  before.  He  does  not 
as  yet  deny  the  infallibility  of  the  Councils,  on  the  contrary, 
he  explicitly  admits  it  ;l  neither  does  he  in  set  words  state 
that  the  Pope  may  emit  false  opinions  when  teaching  on 
faith  and  morals,  although  in  recent  times  both  these  errors 
have  been  said  to  be  embodied  in  his  reply. 

The  obscure  passage  regarding  the  possibility  of  the  Councils 
and  Popes  erring  refers  to  their  action  in  ecclesiastico-political 
matters,  as  the  cases  instanced  by  Luther  show  more  clearly, 
e.g.  the  wars  of  Pope  Julius  II  and  the  "tyrannical  acts"  which 
he  attributes  to  Boniface  VIII. 

It  is  true  that  the  want  of  any  clear  admission  in  his  reply  of 
the  doctrinal  authority  of  the  Church,  his  violent  insistence  on  the 
Bible  as  interpreted  by  himself,  and  his  arbitrary  handling  of 
the  older  theology  and  practice,  gave  cause  for  apprehending 
the  worst. 

Against  Prierias  he  defends  the  opinion,  that  our  Saviour 
commanded  what  was  impossible  because  we  are  always  subject 
to  concupiscence  ;  that  the  sons  of  God  are  forced  to  do  what  is 
good  rather  than  left  to  perform  it  of  their  own  accord,  and,  for 
this  reason,  the  higher  theology  teaches  that  those  actions  are 
the  best  which  Christ  works  in  us  without  our  co-operation,  and 
those  the  worst  "which — according  to  the  absolutely 'false 
teaching  of  Aristotle — we  perform  by  our  own  so-called  free  will." 

From  the  latter  circumstance  the  pseudo-mystic  infers  that 
fasting,  for  instance,  is  excellent  when  the  person  who  fasts  is 
absolutely  unconscious  of  what  he  is  doing  and  thinking  of 
something  higher  ;  at  such  a  moment  he  is  furthest  removed 
from  any  craving  for  food.  Sacramental  Penance,  he  says,  is 
merely  the  commencement  of  penance,  and  zeal  in  its  use  could 
only  be  maintained  by  a  miracle.2 

All  these  ideas,  which,  as  we  know  from  what  has  gone  before, 
give  a  true  picture  of  the  direction  of  his  mind,  are  to  be  found  at 
the  beginning  of  the  work,  of  which  the  confusion  is  matched  only 
by  its  pretensions. 

Because  Prierias  was  a  Dominican  and  Thomist,  Luther  here 
displays  the  bitterest  animosity  against  the  Thomistic  school, 
an  animosity  which  was  henceforth  never  to  cease,  and  likewise 
summons  his  national  feeling  as  a  German  to  help  him  against 
the  Italian.  In  one  of  his  letters  Luther  declared  that  he  would 
let  him  see  there  were  men  in  Germany  well  versed  in  the  arts 

1  Cp.  V.  Prop.,  n.  3  :   "  Non  sum  hcereticus  si  negativam  teneo,  donee 
determinetur  a  concilia."     N.   6  :    "  Ego  ecclesiam  .  .  .  representative 
non  [scio]  nisi  in  concilia  "  ;    but  it  was  incorrect  "  si  quidquid  facit 
ecclesia  virtualis,  id  est  papa  (as  Prierias  stated),  factum  ecclesice  dicitur  "  : 
The  Pope  and  the  Councils  might  err  in  their  regulations  on  practical 
matters  ("  factum  ecclesice). 

2  See  above,  p.  291. 


340  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

and  wily  tricks  of  the  Romans  ;   if  he  continued  to  incense  him, 
he  would  make  free  use  of  his  wit  and  pen  against  him.1 

In  his  reply  to  Prierias,  Luther  had  referred  his  opponent 
to  the  Resolutions  to  his  Indulgence  theses,  which  were 
then  already  in  print.  Staupitz  forwarded  to  Rome  the 
copy  destined  for  the  Pope.  The  letters  to  Staupitz  and 
Leo  X,  which  were  incorporated  in  the  work,  were  dated 
May  30,  1518,  though  the  printing  was  not  finished  before 
August  21.  As  the  Resolutions,  Luther's  most  important 
work  on  the  question  of  Indulgences,  obstinately  confirmed 
the  errors  already  expressed,  more  severe  measures  were 
anticipated  on  the  part  of  the  Curia. 

In  his  efforts  to  procure  the  appointment  of  judges  to 
try  his  cause  in  Germany,  Luther  sought,  through  the  Elector, 
to  make  use  of  the  mediation  of  the  Emperor  Maximilian. 
But  the  Emperor,  who  was  earnestly  solicitous  for  the 
welfare  of  religion,  and  at  the  same  time  was  anxious  to 
secure  the  Pope's  favour  on  behalf  of  the  election  of  his 
grandson  Charles  as  King  of  Rome,  wrote  to  Leo  X, 
August  5,  1518,  from  Augsburg,  that  out  of  love  for  the 
unity  of  the  faith  he  would  support  any  measures  the  Pope 
might  take  against  Luther. 

More  severe  proceedings  against  Luther  were  accordingly 
set  on  foot  in  Rome,  even  before  the  sixty  days  were  over. 
These  measures  are  outlined  in  the  Brief  of  August  23,  1518, 
sent  to  Cardinal  Cajetan,  the  Papal  Legate  at  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg. 

In  view  of  the  notoriety  of  Luther's  acts  and  teaching, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  spiritual  and  secular  power, 
Cajetan  was  to  have  him  brought  to  Augsburg  ;  should 
force  have  to  be  used,  or  should  Luther  not  recant,  then 
Cajetan  was  to  hand  him  over  to  Rome  for  trial  and  punish- 
ment ;  he  himself  therefore  was  not  to  be  the  actual  judge, 
but  only  to  receive  Luther's  recantation.  In  the  event  of 
his  presenting  himself  voluntarily  at  Augsburg  and  recanting, 
so  ran  the  instructions,  Luther  was  to  find  pardon  and 
mercy.  Should  it  be  impossible  to  procure  his  appearance 
at  Augsburg,  then  the  measures  provided  by  law  and 
custom  for  such  cases  were  to  be  enforced  ;  he  and  his 
followers  were  to  be  publicly  excommunicated,  and  the 
authorities  in  Church  and  State  were  to  be  forced,  if  neces- 
1  KSstlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  196. 


THE   TETZEL  LEGEND  341 

sary  under  pain  of  interdict,  to  seize  and  deliver  up  the 
excommunicate. 

The  Elector,  Frederick  the  Wise,  however,  demanded  a 
trial  before  Cardinal  Cajetan  at  Augsburg;  this  was  to  be 
carried  out  with  "  paternal  gentleness."  He  would  not 
consent  to  sanction  any  other  measures.  Cajetan  met  his 
wishes  without  being  untrue  either  to  the  Pope  or  to  himself. 
"  A  man  entirely  devoted  to  study,  without  much  practical 
knowledge  of  the  world,  he  was  no  match  for  such  an  expert 
politician  as  Frederick  of  Saxony."  1  On  September  11  he 
obtained  from  Leo  X  a  Brief  placing  in  his  own  hands  the 
trial  and  decision  on  Luther's  case. 

Thus  the  way  was  paved  for  Luther's  historic  trial  at 
Augsburg. 

Fables  regarding  Luther  and  Tetzel 

Before  passing  on  to  the  trial  at  Augsburg,  we  must  first 
deal  with  the  legends  which  cluster  round  the  name  of 
Tetzel  and  which  were  mostly  started  by  Luther  and  the 
Papal  Chamberlain,  Carl  von  Miltitz. 

We  have  a  detailed  critical  monograph  on  Tetzel  by  Dr.  N. 
Paulus  :  "  Johann  Tetzel,  der  Ablassprediger,"  Mayence,  1899, 
which  the  same  author2  has  since  supplemented  by  other  publica- 
tions. Paulus  by  his  impartial  research  has  sealed  the  fate  of 
the  principal  legends  connected  with  Tetzel's  name. 

A  statement  made  by  Luther  in  1541,  i.e.  at  the  time  of  his 
most  bitter  polemics,  has  been  repeated  countless  times  since, 
viz.  that,  in  1512,  at  Innsbruck,  Tetzel  the  monk  was  condemned 
by  the  Emperor  Maximilian  to  be  drowned  in  the  River  Inn  for 
the  crime  of  adultery,  and  that  only  the  intervention  of  the 
Elector,  Frederick  the  Wise,  had  saved  him  from  this  fate.  This 
is  an  untruth  which  Luther  first  made  use  of  in  his  violent 
pamphlet  "  Wider  Hans  Worst."3  Before  that  time  he  had  never 
mentioned  anything  of  the  kind.  A.  Berger  says  of  the  supposed 
condemnation  at  Innsbruck  :  "  Paulus  has  finally  disposed  of 
the  infamous  tale  of  adultery  and  no  one  will  ever  venture  to 
bring  it  forward  again."*  Before  this  Th.  Brieger  had  declared  : 
"  It  is  high  time  that  this  story  which  has  been  questioned  even 

1  See  Pastor,   "  History  of  the  Popes,"  English  translation,  volume 
vii.,  p.  372. 

2  N.    Paulus,     "  Die   deutschen    Dominikaner   im    Kampfe   gegen 
Luther,"  1903,  pp.  1-9,  "  Johann  Tetzel  "  j    also  in  the  "  Katholik," 
1899,  1,  pp.  484-510;  1901,  1,  pp.  453-68,  554-70. 

3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  26,  p.  50. 

4  "  Hist.  Vierteljahrsschr.  fur  Gesch.,"  5,  1902,  p.  256. 


342  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

by  Protestants  should  disappear."1  No  authority  whatever  can 
be  quoted  for  representing  in  an  unfavourable  light  the  private 
life  of  this  man,  who  stood  so  prominently  before  the  public. 
Concerning  the  supposed  Innsbruck  incident,  Fr.  Dibelius, 
Superintendent  at  Dresden,  says  :  "  among  the  imperfections 
and  crimes  alleged  against  Tetzel  by  his  enemies  the  charge  of 
immorality  cannot  be  sustained."2 

The  shortsighted  Papal  Chamberlain  Miltitz,  in  his  eagerness 
to  secure  peace  on  any  terms,  in  the  first  years  of  the  Indulgence 
controversy  made  common  cause  with  those  opponents  of 
Tetzel  who  brought  forward  baseless  charges  of  immorality 
against  him  after  he  had  withdrawn,  at  the  end  of  1518,  to  the 
pious  seclusion  of  his  Dominican  priory  at  Leipzig.  In  mid- 
January,  1519,  Tetzel  had  to  endure  the  most  bitter  reproaches 
from  the  ill-informed  Papal  agent.  But,  as  Oscar  Michael  re- 
marks, "  all  attempts  to  set  up  Miltitz  as  a  reliable  witness  will 
be  in  vain."3  "What  Miltitz  relates  of  Tetzel  is  altogether 
unworthy  of  credence."  Another  Protestant  writer  had  already 
before  that  expressed  himself  likewise.4 

With  regard  to  the  matter  of  Tetzel's  sermons  above 
referred  to,  it  is  chiefly  to  Luther  that  we  owe  the  charge  of 
flagrant  errors  and  gross  abuses  in  his  proclamation  of  the 
Indulgence.  "  He  wrote,"  so  Luther  explained  to  his 
friends,  "  that  an  Indulgence  is  a  reconciliation  between 
God  and  man  and  takes  effect  even  though  a  man  performs 
no  penance,  and  manifests  neither  contrition  nor  sorrow."5 
"  Tetzel  put  it  so  crudely  that  no  one  could  fail  to  under- 
stand his  meaning."6 

In  his  pamphlet  of  1541  Luther  says  :  "  He  sold  grace  for 
money  at  the  highest  price  he  could."  He  then  instances 
six  "  horrible,  dreadful  articles  "  which  the  avaricious  monk 
had  preached. 

One  of  these  which  extols  his  Indulgence  contains  an  offensive 
statement  respecting  Our  Lady  ;  another  declares  that,  according 
to  Tetzel,  "  it  was  not  necessary  to  feel  sorrow  or  pain  or  contrition 
for  sin,  but  whoever  bought  the  Indulgence,  or  the  Indulgence- 
letters,"  had  also  bought  an  Indulgence  for  "  future  sins  "  ; 
three  of  the  articles  say  he  had  magnified  the  effects  of  the  Indul- 
gence by  the  use  of  unseemly  comparisons,  and  finally,  one  states 

1  "  Theol.  Literaturztg.,"  1900,  p.  84. 

2  In  a  lecture  on  Tetzel's  Life  and  Teaching,  "  Dresdener  Journal," 
1903,  March  20. 

3  "  Munchener  Allgemeine  Zeitung,"   1901,  April  18,  Bell.,  No.  88. 

4  Ibid,,  1900,  May  14,  Beil.,  No.  110.    Cp.  a  like  statement  by  anon- 
Catholic  critic  in  the  "  Frankfurter  Zeitung,"  1899,  October  8,  No.  279. 

5  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  60,  p.  239  ;    cp.  p.  271  f. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  271. 


THE  TETZEL  LEGEND  343 

that  his  teaching  was  that  embodied  in  the  ribald  rhyme :  "  As 
soon  as  money  in  the  coffer  rings,  the  soul  from  purgatory's  fire 
springs." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  accusations  brought  against  Tetzel, 
of  having  sold  forgiveness  of  sins  for  money  without  requiring 
contrition,  and  of  having  even  been  ready  to  absolve  from  future 
sins  in  return  for  a  money  payment,  are,  as  N.  Paulus,  and  others 
before  him,  pointed  out,  utterly  unjust.1  Even  Carlstadt,  after 
he  had  gone  over  to  the  hostile  camp  of  the  new  teaching,  ad- 
mitted that  the  Indulgence  sermons,  including  those  of  Tetzel, 
were  in  agreement  with  the  generally  accepted  teaching  of  the 
Church  ;  of  the  enormities  just  referred  to  he  knows  nothing. 
Above  all,  Tetzel's  own  writings,  likewise  his  instructions  and 
also  the  testimony  of  strangers,  all  speak  in  his  favour.  "  The 
Indulgence,"  Tetzel  says  in  his  "  Vorlegung,"  "  remits  only  the 
pain  [i.e.  the  penalty]  of  sins  which  have  been  repented  of  and 
confessed."  "  No  one  merits  an  Indulgence  unless  he  is  in  a 
truly  contrite  state."2  Those  who  procured  a  Confession-letter 
received,  according  to  an  ancient  usage,  with  the  same  letter 
permission  to  select  a  suitable  confessor  ;  for  this  an  alms  was 
given.  The  confessor  was  able  to  absolve,  after  a  good  confession, 
from  all  sins,  even  in  reserved  cases,  and  to  impart  a  Plenary 
Indulgence  by  virtue  of  the  Papal  authorisation. 

Tetzel  was  able  with  the  help  of  official  witnesses  to  refute 
the  calumny  with  regard  to  Mary  in  his  eulogy  of  the  Indulgence. 
There  can,  however,  be  no  doubt  that  he  brought  the  pecuniary 
side  of  the  Indulgence  too  much  into  the  foreground.  Another 
Dominican,  a  contemporary  of  his,  Johann  Lindner,  criticises 
his  behaviour  as  follows  :  Dr.  Johann  Tetzel  of  Pirna,  of  the  Order 
of  Preachers,  from  the  Leipzig  priory,  a  world-renowned  preacher, 
proclaimed  the  Jubilee  Year  [Jubilee  Indulgence]  at  Naumburg 
Leipzig,  Magdeburg,  Zwickau,  Bautzen,  Gorlitz,  Cologne,  Halle 
and  many  other  places.  .  .  .  His  teaching  found  favour  with 
many  ;  but  he  devised  unheard-of  ways  of  raising  money,  was 
far  too  liberal  in  conferring  offices,  put  up  far  too  many  public 
crosses  [as  a  sign  of  the  Indulgence-preaching]  in  towns  and 
villages,  which  caused  scandal  and  bred  complaints  among  the 
people  and  brought  the  spiritual  treasury  into  disrepute."3 

Finally  the  last  of  the  "  horrible  articles  "  mentioned  above 
does  to  some  extent  approach  the  truth.  The  saying  about  the 
money  in  the  coffer  cannot,  indeed,  be  traced  to  Tetzel's  own  lips, 
yet  in  his  sermons  he  advocated  a  certain  opinion  held  by  some 
Schoolmen  (though  in  no  sense  a  doctrine  of  the  Church), 
viz.  that  an  indulgence  gained  for  the  departed  was  at  once  and 
infallibly  applied  to  this  or  that  soul  for  whom  it  was  destined. 

1  Cp.  also  N.  Paulus's  article  on  the  remitting  of  future  sins  in 
"  Koln.  Volkszeitung,"  1905,  Liter.  Beilage,  No.  43. 

*  "Vorlegung  wyder  einen  vormessen  Sermon  vom  Ablass,"  etc. 
Without  place  or  year  (Frankfurt,  1518,  4to,  15  Bl.). 

3  Menckenius,  "  Scriptores  rer.  germ.,"  t.  2,  Lips.,  1728,  p.  1486 
Cp.  N.  Paulus,  "  Die  deutschen  Dominikaner,"  p.  7  f. 


344  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

This  view  was  not  supported  by  the  Papal  Bulls  of  Indulgence, 
and  Luther  was  not  justified  in  asserting  at  a  later  date  that  the 
Pope  had  actually  taught  this.1  Great  theologians,  such  as 
Cardinal  Cajetan,  for  instance,  even  then  expressed  themselves 
against  such  a  view,  which  now  is  universally  recognised  as 
untenable.  It  was  the  wish  of  Cajetan  that  no  faith  should  be 
given  those  preachers  who  taught  such  extravagances.  "  Preachers 
speak  in  the  name  of  the  Church,"2  he  wrote,  "  only  so  long  as 
they  proclaim  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  the  Church ;  but  if 
for  purposes  of  their  own,  they  teach  that  about  which  they  know 
nothing  and  which  is  only  their  own  imagination,  they  cannot 
be  regarded  as  mouthpieces  of  the  Church  ;  no  one  must  be 
surprised  if  such  as  these  fall  into  error."  It  is  true,  however, 
that  even  the  more  highly  placed  Indulgence  Commissaries  did 
not  scruple,  in  their  official  proclamations,  to  set  forth  as  certain 
this  doubtful  scholastic  opinion.  It  is  no  wonder  that  Tetzel 
in  his  popular  appeals  seized  upon  it  with  avidity,  for,  in  spite 
of  certain  gifts,  he  was  no  great  theologian.  He  not  only  taught 
the  certain  and  immediate  liberation  of  the  soul  in  the  above  sense 
but  also  the  erroneous  proposition  that  a  Plenary  Indulgence 
for  the  departed  could  be  obtained  without  contrition  and 
penance  on  the  part  of  the  living,  simply  by  means  of  a  money 
payment. 

Some  of  Tetzel's  more  recent  champions  have  insinuated  that 
the  unfavourable  opinion  concerning  his  teaching  rests  merely 
on  witnesses  who  reported  on  his  sermons  from  hearsay  without 
having  themselves  been  present.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however, 
the  accusations  do  not  rest  merely  on  such  testimony,  but  more 
especially  on  Tetzel's  own  theses,  or  "  Anti-theses,"  as  he  called 
them,  on  his  "  Vorlegung  "  against  Luther  and  on  his  second 
set  of  theses.  This  is  reinforced  by  the  official  instructions  on 
the  Indulgence  to  which  he  was  bound  to  conform.  That  a 
money  payment  alone  is  necessary  for  obtaining  an  Indulgence 
for  the  departed  is  indeed  stated — though  wrongly — in  the 
instructions  of  Bomhauer  and  also  in  those  of  Arcimboldi  and 
Albert  of  Brandenburg.  The  Anti-theses  above  mentioned  were 
publicly  defended  by  Tetzel  on  January  20,  1518,  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Frankfort  on  the  Oder  ;  they  thus  belong  to  Tetzel, 
though  in  reality  they  were  drawn  up  by  Conrad  Wimpina,  a 
Professor  of  Theology  in  that  town.  Paulus  published  a  new  edition 
of  the  Anti-theses,  which  were  already  known,  from  the  original 
broadsheet  which  he  discovered  in  the  Court  Library  at  Munich.3 
Four  witnesses  to  the  inaccuracy  of  Tetzel's  sermons  must  be 
mentioned :  firstly,  the  Town  Clerk  of  Gorlitz,  Johann  Hass ; 
then  Bertold  Pirstinger,  Bishop  of  Chiemsee  and  author  of  the 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl  ed.,  65,  p.  78  :   "  The  Pope  had  sternly  commanded 
the  angels  to  carry  forthwith  the  souls  of  the  departed  to  heaven."    Just 
as  Tetzel  taught  :    "As  soon  as  the  penny  rattles  in  the  box,  the  soul 
flies  straight  from  Purgatory  to  Heaven." 

2  November   20,    1519.      "Opuscula,"    Lugd.,    1558,   p.    121.      N. 
Paulus,  "  Tet2iel,"  p.  165.  a  Ibid.,  p.  171  f, 


THE  TETZEL  LEGEND  345 

"  Tewtsche  Theologey  "  ;  thirdly,' the  Saxon  Franciscan  Franz 
Folygranus ;  and  lastly,  Duke  George  of  Saxony.  They  confirm 
the  statements  taken  from  the  above  sources,  and  though  their 
assertions  do  not  rest  on  what  they  themselves  heard,  yet  they 
may  be  considered  as  the  echo  of  actual  hearers. 

In  connection  with  the  above  "  horrible,  terrible  articles  " 
taken  from  Tetzel's  teaching,  Luther  makes  a  statement 
with  regard  to  his  own  position  and  knowledge  at  that  time, 
which,  notwithstanding  the  sacred  affirmation  with  which 
he  introduces  it,  is  of  very  doubtful  veracity. 

"  So  truly  as  I  have  been  saved  by  my  Lord  Christ,"  he 
says  of  the  beginning  of  the  Indulgence  controversy  in  1517, 
"  I  knew  nothing  of  what  an  Indulgence  was,  and  no  more 
did  anyone  else."  1 

It  is  possible  that  in  1541,  when,  as  an  elderly  man,  he  wrote 
these  words,  they  may  have  appeared  to  him  to  be  true,  but  the 
sources  from  which  history  is  taken  demand  that  he  himself  as 
well  as  his  Catholic  contemporaries  should  be  protected  against 
such  a  charge  of  ignorance.  His  assertion  has  been  defended 
by  some  Protestants  on  the  assumption  that  his  ignorance  was 
only  concerning  the  recipients  of  the  revenues  proceeding  from 
the  Indulgence.  But  why  force  his  words  ?  They  refer,  as  the 
whole  context  shows,  to  the  theological  doctrine  of  Indulgences. 

We  need  hardly  remind  our  readers  that  the  conviction  that 
Luther  was  thoroughly  well  acquainted  with  the  Catholic  doctrine 
on  Indulgences  can  be  demonstrated  by  his  own  sermon  on 
Indulgences  of  the  year  151 6. 2  He  there  shows  himself  perfectly 
capable  of  distinguishing  between  the  essentials  of  the  Church's 
doctrine  and  the  obscure  and  difficult  questions  which  the  theo- 
logians were  wont  to  propound  in  their  discussions.  With  regard 
to  these  latter,  and  these  only,  he  admitted  his  uncertainty,  as 
did  other  theologians  too.  This  was  as  little  a  disgrace  to  him  as 
the  obscurity  surrounding  certain  points  was  to  the  theology  of 
the  Church.  But  it  is  quite  another  matter  when  he  says  he  did 
not  even  know  what  an  Indulgence  was.  That  no  one  else  knew 
either,  is  a  statement  disposed  of  by  his  own  sermon  of  1516  and 
the  various  theological  tracts  on  this  subject.  We  need  only 
recall  the  explanations  of  Cardinal  Cajetan,  of  the  Augustinian 
theologian  and  preacher  Johann  Paltz  and  of  the  continuator 
of  the  work  of  Gabriel  Biel — so  much  studied  among  the  Augus- 
tinians — Wendelin  Steinbach,  who  succeeded  Biel  as  professor  at 
Tubingen.  Biel  himself  had  written  on  the  question  of  Indulgences 
for  the  departed,  and,  in  his  appendices  on  this  subject,  had 
expressed  himself  quite  correctly. 

Of  the  older  theologians  who  preceded  those  we  have  men- 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  26,  p.  53. 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  65  seq.    For  the  contents,  see  above 
p.  324  f. 


346  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

tioned  in  a  right  appreciation  of  this  subject,  we  may  enumerate 
the  Franciscans  Richard  of  Middletown,  Petrus  de  Palude  and 
Franciscus  Mayron  ;  the  Dominicans  Heinrich  Kalteisen  of 
Coblentz,  whose  writings  on  Indulgences  have  been  re-edited 
by  Dr.  N.  Paulus.  All  these  treated  the  subject  in  accordance 
with  the  doctrine  of  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  and  St.  Bonaventure. 
Kalteisen  in  his  work,  written  in  1448  while  he  was  Magister  S. 
Palatii,  refers  expressly  to  St.  Thomas,  whose  opinion  on  questions 
not  yet  definitively  settled  was  ever  considered  the  best.  To 
mention  only  one  point,  all  agree  in  interpreting  the  old  expression 
(remissio  peccatorum)  usual  in  Indulgence-formula?,  as  meaning 
a  remission  of  the  temporal  punishment.  Suarez,  at  a  later  date, 
could  well  refer  not  only  to  "  all  theologians,"  but  also  to  "  all 
'  Summists,'  "  Le.  to  all  those  who  had  compiled  moral  Sums 
from  the  thirteenth  to  the  sixteenth  century.1 

Thus,  in  1517,  the  theological  side  of  the  question  of 
Indulgences  was  quite  clear,  and  the  statements  made  by 
Luther  at  a  later  date  are  not  deserving  of  credit.  It  was 
Luther's  false  ideas  on  other  points  of  theology  and  his 
determination  to  put  an  immediate  end  to  the  abuses 
connected  with  Indulgences,  which  led  him  in  1517  to  make 
a  general  attack,  even  though  partly  veiled,  on  the  whole 
ecclesiastical  system  of  Indulgences. 

If  we  keep  this  in  view,  a  statement  of  Luther's  to  which 
a  false  interpretation  has  been  frequently  given,  becomes 
clear.  According  to  an  account  given  by  Hieronymus 
Emser,  he  wrote  to  Tetzel  at  a  time  when  the  latter  was 
suffering  keenly  under  the  reproaches  heaped  upon  him  : 
Not  to  worry,  for  it  was  not  he  who  had  begun  the  business, 
but  that  the  child  had  quite  another  father.2 

This  sentence  has  repeatedly  been  taken  as  a  testimony  against 
himself  on  Luther's  part,  as  though  by  it  he  had  intended  to  say  : 
My  new  opinions  and  the  desire  to  change  the  ecclesiastical  order 
of  things  were  the  cause  of  my  coming  forward,  the  Indulgence 
was  only  an  idle  pretext.  Luther's  defenders,  on  the  other  hand, 
took  it  to  mean  :  "  The  child  has,  it  is  true,  another  father,  viz. 
God  Himself  Who  took  pity  on  His  Church,  and  forced  Luther  to 
come  forward."  Both  interpretations  are  wrong,  and  the 

1  Cp.  the  article  by  Dr.  N.  Paulus  :    "  Johann  v.  Paltz  iiber  Ablass 
und  Reue  "  in  the  "  Zeitschrift  fur  kath.  theol.,"  23,  1899,  p.  48  ff.    He 
treats  in  the  same  review  of  Wendelin  Steinbach,  24,  1900,  p.  262  :    of 
Richard  of  Middletown,  ibid.,  p.   12.     See  Kalteisen's  writing,  ibid., 
27,  1903,  p.  368  ff.     We  also  possess  a  treatise  on  Indulgences  by  the 
secular  priest  Nic.  of  Dinkelsbiihl,  professor  at  the  University. 

2  Emser,  "  Auff  des  Stieres  tzu  Wiettenberg  wiettende  Replica,"  Bl. 
A.  3'.     Cp.  "Luthers  Briefe,"  ed.  de  Wette,  volume  vi.,  K.  Seidemann, 
p.  18,  where  it  is  stated  :    "  Luther's  letter  was  in  Eraser's  hands." 


PREACHING  OF  THE   INDULGENCE  347 

following  is  the  meaning  as  determined  by  the  context :  The 
attack  which  Luther  made  upon  Tetzel  was  really  directed 
against  the  authorities  of  the  Church,  against  the  Pope  and 
Archbishop  Albert  of  Brandenburg  ;  these,  not  Tetzel,  were  the 
"  father  of  the  child,"  and  responsible  for  what  afterwards 
happened. 1 

Tetzel  died  August  11,  1519,  broken  down  by  the  weight 
of  the  accusations  brought  against  him  and  by  the  sight  of 
the  mischief  which  had  been  wrought,  and  was  buried 
before  the  High  Altar  of  the  Dominican  Church  at  Leipzig. 

To  describe  the  unfortunate  monk  as  the  "  cause  "  of 
the  whole  movement  which  began  1517  is,  in  view  of  what 
has  been  stated  in  the  preceding  chapters,  the  merest  legend. 
Notwithstanding  the  efforts  which  Luther  made  to  represent 
the  matter  in  this  or  a  similar  light,  it  has  been  clearly  2 
proved  that  his  own  spiritual  development  was  the  "  cause," 
or  at  least  the  principal  cause,  though  other  factors  may 
have  co-operated  more  or  less. 

If  we  turn  our  attention  to  the  external  circumstances 
and  the  reasons  which  led  to  Tetzel's  Indulgence-preaching, 
we  shall  find  that  recent  research  has  brought  to  light 
numerous  facts  to  supplement  those  already  known,  and 
also  various  elements  which  dispose  of  the  legends  hitherto 
current. 

2.  The  Collections  for  St.  Peter's  in  History  and  Legend 

The  scholarly,  well-documented  work  of  Aloysius  Schulte 
has  thrown  a  clearer  light  upon  the  question  of  the  St. 
Peter's  Indulgence  and  the  part  which  the  Archbishop  of 
Mayence  and  Magdeburg  played  in  the  same  (cp.  above, 
p.  327).3 

In  his  later  days  Luther  spread  the  following  version  of 
the  origin  of  Tetzel's  Indulgence-preaching :  Albert  of 
Mayence  selected  the  "  great  clamourer  "  Tetzel  as  preacher 

1  N.  Paulus,  "Tetzel,"  p.  169. 

2  As  he  declares  in  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  26,  p.  50  ff. ;    "The  first, 
real    and    actual  beginning   of    the  Lutheran  uproar"    was   Tetzel's 
preaching,  and  "  the  fame  of  it  did  not  please  me  at  all,  for  I  did  not 
know  what  an  Indulgence  was,  and  the  song  was  getting  too  high  for 
my  voice,"  it  was  the  Bishop  of  Mayence  who  really  commenced  the 
affair  through  "  the  cut-purse,  Tetzel  "  ;    he  says  in  his  Table-Talk  : 
"If  the  Pope  had  only  dismissed  the  Indulgence-mongers,  I  would 
willingly  have  been  silent,"  "  Colloquia,"  ed.  Bindseil,  3,  p.  195. 

3  "  Die   Fugger   in  Rom  1495-1523,"  Bd.   1,  Darstellung  ;   Bd.   2, 
Urkunden,  Leipzig,  1904. 


348  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

of  the  Indulgence  in  order,  with  one  half  of  the  proceeds 
of  the  business,  which  was  the  part  of  the  spoils  to  be 
allotted  to  the  Archbishop,  to  pay  for  the  pallium  which 
Rome  had  sent  him ;  the  cost  of  the  pallium  was  said  to  have 
amounted  to  26,000  or  even  30,000  gulden  ;  the  Fuggers 
advanced  this  money  to  Archbishop  Albert  and  then  he, 
with  Tetzel,  "  sent  forth  the  Fugger  cut-purses  throughout 
the  land."  "  The  Pope,  too,  had  his  finger  in  the  pic,  and 
had  seen  that  the  [other]  half  went  towards  the  building  of 
St.  Peter's  in  Rome."1 

At  a  later  date  some  of  the  Protestants  even  averred 
that  Tetzel  "  collected  in  the  first  and  only  year  [of  his 
preaching]  one  hundred  thousand  gulden." 

In  the  above  statements  there  is  a  mixture  of  truth  and  false- 
hood. Various  particulars,  discreditable  to  both  Rome  and 
Mayence,  had  reached  Luther  by  a  sure  hand  ;  for  others  he 
drew  on  his  own  imagination.2 

As  early  as  1519  he  says  in  his  memoranda  for  the  negotiations 
with  Miltitz  :  "  The  Pope,  as  his  office  required,  should  either 
have  forbidden  and  hindered  the  Bishop  of  Magdeburg  [Albert] 
from  seeking  so  many  bishoprics  for  himself,  or  have  bestowed 
them  upon  him  freely  as  he  had  himself  received  them  from  the 
Lord.  But  as  the  Pope  encouraged  the  Bishop's  ambition  and 
gratified  his  own  greed  for  gold  by  taking  so  many  thousand 
gulden  for  the  palliums,  i.e.  for  the  Bishops'  mantles,  and  for  the 
dispensation,  he  had,  I  said  [this  is  Luther],  forced  and  instigated 
the  Bishop  of  Magdeburg  to  coin  money  out  of  the  Indulgence. 
.  .  .  Then  I  became  impatient  with  such  a  lamentable  business, 
and  also,  more  especially,  with  the  greed  of  the  Florentines,  who 
persuaded  the  good,  simple  Pope  to  do  as  they  wished,  and  drove 
him  into  the  greatest  danger  and  misfortune."3  Luther  was  well- 
informed  regarding  what  was  going  on  in  Rome,  probably  owing 
to  his  having  friends  at  the  Court  of  Albert.  He  refers  in  1518 
to  an  "  epistola  satis  erudita  "  from  Rome  which  had  come  into 
his  hands,  and  which  inveighed  in  the  strongest  terms  against 
the  Florentines  who  surrounded  the  Pope,  as  the  "  most  avaricious 
of  men  "  ;  "  they  abuse,"  so  he  writes,  "  the  Pope's  good  nature 
in  order  to  fill  the  bottomless  pit  of  their  passionate  love  of 
money."* 

With  regard  to  the  statement,  that  Archbishop  Albert  had 
petitioned  the  Pope  for  the  Indulgence  in  order  to  pay  off  the 
debt  he  had  incurred  by  receiving  the  See  of  Mayence  in  addition 

1  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  26,  p.  52. 

2  We  shall  come  back  later  to  the  sources  from  which  he  drew  his 
information. 

3  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  342. 

4  To  Spalatin,  September  2,  1518,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  1,  p.  227.     Cp. 
Com.  in  Ep.  ad.  Gal.,  3,  p.  133. 


FINANCIAL  DIFFICULTIES         349 

to  that  of  Magdeburg  and  also  the  expenses  of  the  pallium,  it 
has  now  been  ascertained  (the  fact  is  certainly  no  less  to  Rome's 
discredit)  that,  in  reality,  it  was  the  Roman  authorities,  who,  for 
financial  reasons,  offered  the  Indulgence  to  the  Archbishop  ;  Albert 
was  to  receive  from  the  proceeds  a  compensation  of  10,000  ducats, 
which  sum,  in  addition  to  the  ordinary  fees,  had  been  demanded 
of  him  on  the  occasion  of  his  confirmation  as  Archbishop  of 
Mayence  on  account  of  the  dispensation  necessary  for  combining 
the  two  Archiepiscopal  Sees  ;  one  half  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
Indulgence  was  to  be  made  over  to  him  for  the  needs  of  the  Arch- 
diocese of  Mayence,  the  other  half  was  to  go  towards  the  re- 
building of  St.  Peter's,  for  which  object  a  collection  had  already 
commenced  in  other  countries  and  was  being  promoted  by  the 
preaching  of  the  Indulgence. 

Regarding  the  whole  matter  we  learn  the  following  details. 

When  Bishop  Albert  of  Brandenburg,  the  brother  of  the 
Brandenburg  Elector,  Joachim  I,  was  chosen  Archbishop  in 
1514  by  the  Cathedral  Chapter  of  Mayence  he  was  faced  by  great 
difficulties,  financial  as  well  as  ecclesiastical.  Was  it  likely  that 
he  would  obtain  from  Rome  his  confirmation  as  Archbishop  of 
Mayence,  seeing  that  he  was  already  Archbishop  of  Magdeburg 
and  at  the  same  time  administrator  of  the  diocese  of  Halber- 
stadt  ?  Would  it  be  possible  for  him  to  raise  the  customary 
large  sum  to  be  paid  for  his  confirmation  and  for  the  pallium, 
seeing  that  the  Archdiocese  of  Mayence,  owing  to  two  previous 
vacancies  in  rapid  succession,  had  already  been  obliged  to  pay 
this  sum  twice  within  ten  years,  and  was  thus  practically  bank- 
rupt ?  The  sum  necessary,  which  was  the  same  in  the  case  of 
Treves  and  Cologne,  amounted  on  each  occasion  to  about  14,000 
ducats.  With  regard  to  the  confirmation-fees  for  the  See  of 
Mayence  and  the  expenses  of  the  pallium,  the  Elector  Joachim, 
who,  for  political  reasons,  was  extremely  anxious  to  see  his 
brother  in  possession  of  the  electoral  dignity  of  Mayence,  promised 
to  defray  the  same,  and  thus  the  Mayence  election  took  place  on 
March  9.  The  Archbishop-elect  borrowed,  on  May  15  of  the  same 
year,  21,000  ducats  from  the  Fuggers,  the  great  Augsburg 
bankers — no  doubt  with  his  brother's  concurrence — in  order  to 
be  able  to  meet  at  Rome  the  necessary  outlay  for  his  confirmation 
and  pallium. 

Grave  doubts,  however,  were  entertained  in  the  Papal  Curia 
as  to  whether,  according  to  canon  law,  the  above  bishoprics 
might  be  held  by  the  same  person.  Two  of  the  offices  in  question 
were  archbishoprics,  and,  hitherto,  in  spite  of  the  prevalence  of 
the  abuse  of  placing  several  croziers  in  one  hand,  two  arch- 
bishoprics had  never  been  held  by  one  man.  Besides,  the  candi- 
date was  only  in  his  twenty-fourth  year. 

An  undesirable  way  out  of  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  the 
necessary  dispensation  for  holding  the  three  ecclesiastical  dig- 
nities presented  itself.  An  official  of  the  Papal  Dataria  informed 
the  ambassador  from  Brandenburg,  that  if  Albert  could  be 
induced  to  pay  10,000  ducats  beyond  the  customary  fees  "  this 


350  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

should  not  be  looked  upon  as  a  composition  [tax],  as  His  Holiness, 
in  return  for  the  same,  would  grant  a  ten-year  Plenary  Indul- 
gence in  the  shape  of  a  Jubilee  in  the  diocese  of  Mayence."1 
This  proposal  emanated  from  the  Papal  officials,  Leo  X  himself 
as  yet  refusing  to  hear  anything  about  the  money  question. 
After  lengthy  negotiations  the  proposed  plan  was  accepted  by 
the  principals  on  both  sides  in  the  following  amended  shape  : 
The  Indulgence,  one  half  of  the  proceeds  of  which  was  to  be 
devoted  to  the  building  of  St.  Peter's,  and  the  other  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Mayence,  was  to  be  proclaimed  for  eight  years,  not 
only  in  the  diocese  of  Mayence,  but  throughout  the  ecclesiastical 
provinces  of  Mayence  and  Magdeburg  as  well  as  in  the  domains 
of  the  house  of  Brandenburg  (i.e.  throughout  almost  the  half  of 
Germany,  owing  to  the  vastness  of  the  province  of  Mayence)  ; 
the  proceeds  were  to  be  divided  into  two  parts  in  the  manner 
mentioned  above,  as  alms  for  the  erection  of  St.  Peter's  and  as  an 
income  for  the  Archbishop  of  Mayence.  The  Pope,  in  his  simple 
goodness  of  heart,  was  gradually  induced,  by  political  considera- 
tions, to  agree  to  the  proposal.  On  July  19  the  matter  was 
finally  decided  in  Consistory.  Thus  no  actual  indemnity  was 
paid  for  the  dispensation  (as  Luther  asserted)  beyond  the  In- 
dulgence money  and  the  alms  for  building.  Pope  Leo  X  con- 
firmed the  supplied  in  question  on  August  1,  1514.  The  public 
Indulgence  Bull,  however,  Sacrosancti  Salvatoris,  is  dated  March 
31,  1515. 

The  branch  house  of  the  Fuggers  at  Rome  at  once  paid  the 
sum  of  10,000  ducats  to  the  Pope.  As  the  other  fees  for  con- 
firmation and  the  pallium  had  already  been  paid,  the  induction 
of  Albert  as  Archbishop  of  Mayence  took  place  on  August  18, 
1514,  no  difficulty  being  raised  as  to  his  retaining  the  two  other 
Sees. 

Every  Catholic  at  the  present  day  will  agree  with  H.  Schrors 
that  "  this  manner  of  acquiring  benefices  with  the  assistance  of 
an  Indulgence  was  unworthy  and  reprehensible." 2  It  brings  before 
our  eyes  an  instance  of  the  ecclesiastical  abuses  prevalent  just 
before  the  Reformation,  and  which  cannot  be  sufficiently  de- 
plored. "  Although  Albert's  confirmation  may  not  have  been, 
strictly  speaking,  simoniacal,"  says  a  learned  Catholic  reviewer 
of  Schulte's  works,3  "  yet  there  is  a  strong  suspicion  of  simony 

1  Schulte,  ibid.,  2,  p.  96. 

2  H.  Schrors  on  Schulte's  work  in  the  "  Wissentschaftl.  Beilage 
zur  Germania,"  1904,  Nos.  14  and  15,  p.  299. 

3  N.  Paulus  in  the   "  Koln.  Volksztg.,"    1904,  April  24,  No.   339. 
Schrors,  ibid.,  292  f.,  is  right  in  excluding  any  simoniacal  character  from 
the  business,  whether  considered  in  the  nature  of  a  composition  (which 
it  was  not  intended  to  be)  or  as  the  bestowal  of  an  Indulgence  with  a 
building  alms  attached  to  it.     In  the  case  of  compositions  (for  the 
bestowal  of  bishoprics)   the  fees  customary  from  ancient  times  are 
not  a  "  compensation  for  a  spiritual  object,  or  for  an  object  connected 
with  spiritual  things,  but  a  debt  incurred  on  the  occasion  of  the  bestowal 
of  something  spiritual."     In  the  granting  of  Indulgences,  however,  a 
condition  of  the  imparting  of  any  spiritual  favour  was  always  some  gift 


ABUSE   OF   INDULGENCES          351 

about  it ;  at  any  rate,  it  was  an  extremely  discreditable  business, 
and  we  may  well  look  upon  it  as  a  Divine  Judgment  that  the 
Mayence  Indulgence  should  have  been  the  immediate  occasion 
of  the  great  religious  upheaval  for  which  many  other  factors 
had  been  paving  the  way."  "  The  greater  part  of  the  blame 
rests  with  the  Hohenzollern  brothers,  who  approached  the  Curia 
with  such  an  exorbitant  demand  for  the  cumulation  of  bene- 
fices."1 

"  Looked  at  in  itself,  the  allocation  of  Indulgences,  like  that 
for  St.  Peter's,  is  to  some  extent  justified  by  the  fact,  that  it  was 
customary  in  the  Middle  Ages  to  make  the  granting  of  privileges 
,an  opportunity  for  the  giving  of  special  alms,  and  that  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Papacy,  as  head  of  the  Church,  gave  it  the  right  to 
share  in  the  privileges  of  its  members.  On  this  was  based  the 
whole  system  of  taxes  levied  by  the  Curia  on  the  bestowal  of 
any  office,  inasmuch  as  the  tax  was  really  a  part  of  the  income 
of  the  Curial  officials  ;  whereas,  however,  Rome  had  hitherto 
been  content  with  one-third  of  the  proceeds  of  an  Indulgence, 
this  was  now  increased  to  one-half."2  "  Nor  was  it  right  if,  as 
was  probably  the  case,  the  Indulgence-preachers  did  not  explain 
to  the  people  how  one  part  of  their  alms  was  to  be  disposed  of, 
but  left  them  in  the  belief  that  it  was  all  to  be  devoted  to  the 
object  announced  ("i.e.  the  rebuilding  of  St.  Peter's]."3 

Finally,  the  too  frequent  tendering  of  Indulgences  towards  the 
close  of  the  Middle  Ages  must  be  noted  as  a  regrettable  abuse. 
The  collections  made  for  Indulgences  granted  for  all  sorts  of 
ecclesiastical  purposes  were  so  numerous,  that  loud  complaints 
were  raised  by  the  Rulers  about  the  heavy  burden  thus  imposed 
upon  their  people. 

The  Indulgence  for  St.  Peter's  followed  many  others  and  was 
first  started  under  Pope  Julius  II.  In  this  case  the  importance 
to  the  whole  of  Christendom  of  the  erection  of  a  new 
church  over  the  tomb  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  may  have 
afforded  some  justification.  Originally  intended  to  last  only  for 
twelve  months,  the  Indulgence  was  extended  from  year  to  year. 

As  regards  its  administration,  Papal  commissaries  had  been 
appointed  for  the  proclamation  of  the  Indulgence  and  for  making 
the  collections.  Thus  the  Franciscan  Observantines  under  the 
Vicar-General  of  the  Order  were  entrusted  with  the  so-called 
Cismontane  provinces,  comprising  Italy  and  the  Slavonian 
regions  to  the  east  of  Europe,  including  Hungary,  the  German 

to  be  devoted  to  a  special  pious  object.  "  Monetary  self-denial  for  the 
sake  of  the  Roman  building  fund  was  an  integral  part  of  the  Indul- 
gence," "  according  to  the  Papal  motu  proprio  it  was  justified  by  the 
unusual  length  and  irrevocable  nature  of  the  Indulgence."  (Schrors.) 
"  The  purchase  or  sale  of  spiritual  things  for  money  or  money's  worth, 
never  entered  the  minds  of  those  who  made  use  of  the  Indulgence." 
So  writes  O.  Pfiilf  in  the  "  Stimmen  aus  Maria-Laach,"  67,  1904,  p.  322. 

1  Kalkoff,  "  Forschungen,"  p.  379.    Cp.  Schrdrs,  ibid.,  p.  299. 

2  Schrors,  ibid. 

3  Ibid.     With  regard  to  this  matter,  the  silence  of  the  Indulgence 
Instructions  of  Constance,  dated  1513,  is  significant. 


352  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

portions  of  Moravia,  Bohemia,  Silesia  and  Prussia  and  likewise 
Switzerland.  In  Switzerland  the  preacher  was  the  celebrated 
Franciscan  Bernardin  Samson.  Other  special  commissaries 
were  distributed  throughout  the  west  of  Europe,  according  to 
the  political  divisions  ;  thus  we  find  them  established  by  Papal 
appointment  in  Spain,  Brittany,  the  British  Isles,  Savoy,  Bur- 
gundy, Scandinavia,  and  in  the  Spanish  colonies  in  America. 

There  had  been  some  delay  in  introducing  this  arrangement 
into  Germany  as  the  country  was  already  exhausted  by  large 
collections  made  for  the  Teutonic  Order  and  the  armies  which  it 
had  been  compelled  to  raise  for  the  defence  of  the  Catholic 
countries  and  Christian  civilisation,  and  also  by  other  taxes. 
In  1514  the  time  seemed,  however,  to  have  arrived.  In  this 
year,  the  same  in  which  the  bargain  was  struck  with  Albert  of 
Brandenburg,  a  Chief  Commissary,  in  the  person  of  a  cleric  at 
the  Papal  Court,  Gianangelo  Arcimboldi,  was  appointed  for  the 
provinces  of  Cologne,  Treves,  Salzburg,  Bremen,  Besan?on  and 
other  dioceses  ;  Mayence,  on  the  other  hand,  with  the  other 
portions  of  Germany  before  mentioned,  was  reserved  for  Albert 
as  Commissary-General. 

The  Chief  Commissary  appointed  sub-commissaries  and 
preachers.  Tetzel  was  chosen  by  Albert  of  Mayence  as  sub- 
Commissary.  He  had,  before  this,  acted  as  sub-Commissary 
(1505-6)  for  the  preaching  of  the  Indulgence  on  behalf  of  the 
Teutonic  Order  in  the  dioceses  of  Merseburg  and  Naumburg, 
and  later  had  worked  in  many  other  parts  of  Germany  for  the 
same  Indulgence.  In  1516  he  had  been  appointed  by  Arcimboldi 
as  sub-Commissary  and  preacher  in  the  diocese  of  Meissen.  It 
was  in  the  beginning  of  1517  that  Archbishop  Albert  took  him 
into  his  service  as  sub-Commissary  and  preacher  for  the  dioceses 
of  Halberstadt  and  Magdeburg.1  In  this  capacity  he  came  in 
the  spring,  1517,  to  Jtiterbog,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Witten- 
berg. While  subordinate  to  Archbishop  Albert  he  was  at  the 
same  time,  like  his  employer,  under  the  orders  of  a  Roman 
Commission  ;  all  the  Chief  Commissaries,  Albert  as  well  as 
Arcimboldi,  were  subordinate  to  a  Papal  Commission,  at  the 
head  of  which  was  the  Pope's  Master  of  the  Treasury. 

The  appointment  of  Albert  as  Chief  Commissary  had  been 
made  under  the  impression  that  the  standing  of  this  powerful 
German  Prince  of  the  Church  would  contribute  to  the  success 
of  the  undertaking,  and  influence  even  those  who  were  not  in 
favour  of  the  scheme.  Yet  Albert's  own  envoys,  when  the 
handing  over  the  Indulgence  was  first  mooted,  openly  declared 
that  they  were  not  inclined  to  agree  to  accepting  the  Indulgence 
as  "  discontent,  and  perhaps  something  worse,  might  be  the 
result,"2  a  fear  which  events  were  sadly  to  justify. 

In  the  end  the  yield  did  not  reach  expectations  ;  this  is  plain 
from  the  accounts  now  available.  The  "  hundred  thousand 

1  Cf.  F.  Herrmann,  "  Tetzels  Eintritt  in  den  Dienst  des  Erzbischofa 
Albrecht,"  in  "  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchengesch.,"  23,  1902,  p.  263  ff. 

2  Schulte,  "Die  Fugger  in  Rom  1495-1523,"  2,  p.  98. 


PROCEEDS   OF  INDULGENCE       353 

gulden  "  which  Tetzel  was  said  to  have  collected  in  one  year  are 
a  mere  fiction.  This  tale  was  spread  abroad  in  1721  by  J.  E. 
Kapp,  and  before  that  by  J.  Wolfius  (1600),  and  would  appear 
to  date  from  a  chance  word  let  fall  by  Paul  Lang,  the  Bene- 
dictine (1520).1  We  are,  however,  in  possession  of  more  authentic 
details  since  an  exact  account  was  kept. 

This  account  of  the  collections  was  made  in  the  following 
manner  :  the  money-boxes  were  opened  and  the  contents  counted 
in  the  presence  of  witnesses,  and  the  statement  of  the  amount 
certified  by  a  notary.  Representatives  of  both  parties — Arch- 
bishop Albert  and  the  Fugger  bank — were  present,  and  kept  an 
account,  half  of  the  proceeds  being  paid  by  the  Fuggers  to  the 
Curia  at  Rome  for  St.  Peter's,  and  the  other  half  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Mayence.  It  was  a  good  thing  and  a  guarantee  against 
mismanagement,  that,  at  any  rate  in  the  case  of  the  Mayence 
Indulgence  and  that  for  St.  Peter's,  a  reliable  banking-house  of 
world-wide  fame  and  conducted  on  business  principles  (even 
though  Luther  styles  the  Fuggers  cut-purses),  should  have  thus 
undertaken  the  supervision  of  the  accounts,  however  distasteful 
it  may  seem  to  have  left  to  bank  officials  the  distribution  of  the 
Indulgence-letters  from  the  very  commencement  of  the  preaching. 

How  much  did  the  proceeds  amount  to  ?  The  Mayence 
Indulgence  was  preached  only  from  the  beginning  of  1517  to 
1518,  the  rise  of  the  religious  conflict  interfering  with  its  con- 
tinuance. Schulte  has,  however,  put  us  in  possession  of  two 
considerable  statements  of  accounts  concerning  this  period, 
taken  from  the  archives  of  the  Vatican.  That  of  May  5,  1519, 
deals  with  the  Papal  half  of  the  Indulgence  money  which  flowed 
in  from  the  various  dioceses  of  the  ecclesiastical  province  of 
Mayence  during  1517  and  1518,  and  was  handed  over  by  the 
house  of  Fugger.  This  half  amounted  to  1643  gulden  45  kreuzer. 
A  like  sum  was  handed  over  to  Albert,  as  has  been  proved  by 
Schulte  from  a  document  in  the  State  archives  at  Magdeburg. 
The  other  statement  of  account  is  dated  June  16  of  the  same 
year  and  places  the  sum  total  of  the  money  received  from  the 
ecclesiastical  province  of  Magdeburg  at  5149  gulden,  according 
to  which  each  half  amounted  to  2574£  gulden.  If  we  assume 
these  sums,  viz.  8436  gulden,  to  have  been  the  gross  proceeds 
of  the  Indulgence  enterprise,  and  if  we  take  into  consideration 
the  charges,  comparatively  high,  for  those  engaged  in  the  work, 
then  the  amount  cannot  be  described  as  large.  Nor  would  the 
Archbishop  of  Mayence  have  received  entire  the  4218  gulden 
constituting  his  share,  as,  according  to  an  arrangement  made 
with  the  Emperor,  he  had  been  obliged  to  make  him  a  yearly 
payment  of  1000  gulden  from  the  net  profits.  Thus  only  3218 
gulden  would  have  remained  to  him.  This  would  have  com- 

1  N.  Paulus,  in  the  "  Koln.  Volksztg.,"  ibid.,  who  gives  the  quota- 
tions from  Kapp  and  Wolfius.  Paul  Lang  says,  in  Pistorius  Struvius, 
"Rer.  germ,  script.,"  1,  p.  1281,  Luther,  by  his  interference  with  the 
preaching  of  the  Indulgence,  had,  "  ut  Jama  fuit,"  caused  the  Romans 
in  one  year  a  loss  of  100,000  gulden. 


354  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

pensated  him  but  poorly  for  the  enormous  payments  he  had  made 
to  Rome.  As  regards  the  sums  mentioned  we  must  bear  in  mind 
the  vast  difference  between  the  value  of  money  then  and  now  ; 
the  buying  value  of  money,  at  a  moderate  estimate,  was  then 
three  times  greater  than  to-day.  Since  the  researches  undertaken 
by  Schulte,  other  accounts,  not  included  in  the  above,  concerning 
the  revenues  produced  by  the  Indulgence  have  been  discovered, 
"  a  proof  that  an  exact  estimate  of  the  whole  proceeds  of  the 
Mayence-Magdeburg  Indulgence  is  as  yet  out  of  the  question."1 

Another  fable  which  owes  its  origin  to  the  anti-Catholic 
inventions  of  the  sixteenth  century  has  it  that  Leo  X  did  not 
devote  the  results  of  the  Mayence  Indulgence  to  the  building  of 
St.  Peter's,  but  poured  them  into  the  already  well-filled  coffers  of 
his  sister  Maddalena,  who  had  married  a  Cibo.  There  is  no  proof 
for  this  assertion.  Felice  Cortelori,  the  well-known  keeper  of 
the  Vatican  archives,  declared,  even  in  his  day,  that  he  was  un- 
able to  find  any  confirmation  of  this  story,  which  should  therefore 
be  rejected  as  fabulous,  and  Schulte,  as  a  result  of  his  own  in- 
vestigations, agrees  with  him.2 

Owing  to  the  abuses  and  the  change  in  public  opinion,  the 
amalgamation  of  spiritual  and  temporal  interests,  as  it  appeared 
in  the  Indulgence  collections,  became  untenable  in  the  course  of 
the  sixteenth  century.  The  Council  of  Trent  did  well,  though 
rather  late  in  the  day,  in  relegating,  as  far  as  possible,  the  system 
of  Indulgences  to  the  spiritual  domain,  its  original  and  special 
sphere,  that  of  benefiting  souls.  But  one  who  knows  how  to 
view  the  movement  of  the  times  and  the  development  of  the 
Church's  life  from  the  standpoint  of  history,  will  be  able  to  put 
its  true  value  upon  this  apparently  strange  union  cf  the  temporal 
and  spiritual  in  the  Indulgence  system  of  the  Late  Middle  Ages, 
and  will  give  due  consideration  to  the  fact,  that  in  those  days  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  domains  were  more  closely  connected  than 
at  any  other  period.  They  were  thrown  into  mutual  dependence, 
each  supporting  the  other  ;  that  disadvantages  as  well  as  benefits 
resulted,  was  of  course  inevitable. 

The  preaching  of  Indulgences  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of 
the  Church,  when  rightly  carried  out,  might  be  compared  with 
popular  missions  of  the  present  day.  Besides  the  less  desirable 
preachers  many  able  and  zealous  men  came  forward  wherever 
the  cross,  or  the  so-called  Vesper-Bild,  was  erected  as  a  sign  of  the 
preaching  of  the  Indulgence.  The  crowds  who  streamed  together, 
listened  to  the  admonitions  of  speakers  previously  unknown  to 
them  and  usually  belonging  to  some  Order,  with  more  attention 
than  at  the  ordinary  religious  services  ;  many  were  led  to  a  sense 
of  their  sins  and  to  amend  their  life,  as  they  could  not  receive  the 
Indulgence  without  an  inward  change  of  heart ;  they  were  also 
glad  to  take  advantage  of  the  presence  of  strange  confessors 

1  F.  Herrmann,    "  Mainz-Magdeburgische    Ablasskistenvisitations- 
protokolle,"  in  "  Archiv  fur  Reformationsgesch.,"  6,  1909  (pp.  361-84), 
p.  364  f.,  where  the  new  accounts  in  question  are  quoted. 

2  Schulte,  ibid.,  I,  p.  173 


THE   AUGSBURG   TRIAL  355 

provided  with  ample  faculties,  to  unburden  their  consciences  by 
a  good  confession.  The  alms  seemed  little  to  them  in  com- 
parison with  the  spiritual  gain.  And  as  hundreds  came  and 
experienced  a  similar  spiritual  renewal,  their  very  multitude  fired 
them  with  a  common  impulse  to  persevere  in  what  was  good. 
The  researches  of  historians  have  hitherto  been  directed  too  much 
towards  the  abuses  and  outward  disorders  which  accompanied 
these  popular  practices,  which  were  for  so  long  a  great  help  to 
religion.  It  would  be  no  loss  if  in  future,  so  far  as  the  special 
accounts  which  have  been  handed  down  admit,  historians  were 
to  dwell  more  on  the  ordinary  and  little-noticed  good  results 
effected  by  Indulgences  since  they  were  first  started.1 

3.  The  Trial  at  Augsburg  (1518) 

In  the  course  of  September,  1518,  Luther  received  the 
citation  to  appear  before  Cardinal  Cajetan  at  Augsburg,  as 
had  been  agreed  with  the  Elector  Frederick;  already,  on 
August  25,  the  General  of  the  Augustinians  had,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  earlier  and  more  stringent  instructions  from 
Rome  to  Cajetan,  forwarded  an  order  to  the  Saxon  Pro- 
vincial Gerard  Hecker,  to  seize  Luther  and  keep  him  in 
custody.  At  the  end  of  September  Luther  set  out  for 
Augsburg,  where  he  arrived,  with  a  recommendation  from 
the  Elector  and  an  Imperial  safe  conduct,  on  October  7. 

He  had  started  on  the  journey  with  great  inward  tremors 
and  was  a  prey  to  the  same  violent  agitation  at  Augsburg. 
At  a  later  date  he  attributes  the  evil  thoughts  which  plagued 
him  to  the  influence  of  a  demon.2  He  seems  from  the  first 
to  have  been  determined  to  carry  his  cause  with  a  high  hand, 
as  ostensibly  that  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  becomes  more  and 
more  convinced  of  his  mission  from  above,  a  persuasion 
which  takes  possession  of  his  soul  with  suggestive  force. 

In  the  fragment  of  a  lost  letter  from  Nuremberg  we  find  him 
writing  of  his  journey  on  October  3-4,  1518,  to  his  Wittenberg 
friends  whom  he  wishes  to  encourage  to  remain  steadfast.  Faint- 
hearted people,  so  he  says,  had  tried  to  dissuade  him  from  con- 
tinuing his  journey,  "  but  I  stand  fast ;  let  the  Will  of  the  Lord 
be  done  ;  even  at  Augsburg,  even  in  the  midst  of  His  enemies, 
Christ  still  reigns  .  .  .  Christ  shall  live  though  Martin  and  every 
other  sinner  perish  ;  the  God  of  my  Salvation  shall  be  exalted. 
Farewell  and  be  steadfast,  stand  upright  because  it  is  necessary 
either  to  be  rejected  by  man  or  by  God,  but  God  is  true  and  every 

1  Cp.  N.  Paulus,  "  Ablasspredigten  des  ausgehenden  Mittelaltors," 
in  the  "  Liter.  Beilage  der  Koln.  Volksztg.,"  1910,  No.  11. 

2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  202.    Cp.  "Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken," 
1882,  p.  692. 


356  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

man  a  liar."1  He  certainly  did  not  treat  the  matter  lightly.  To 
attribute  hypocrisy  to  him,  as  though  he  merely  played  a  part, 
would  be  to  do  him  an  injustice.  It  is  true  there  are  recent 
writers  who  look  upon  him  as  a  mere  comedian,  but  it  would  be 
nearer  the  mark  to  compare  him  to  John  Hus  on  his  journey  to 
the  Council  of  Constance.  Like  him,  he  looked  forward  to  death 
without  any  inclination  to  recant.  The  thought  passed  through 
him,  he  once  said  later  :  "  Now  I  must  die,"  and  he  pictured  to 
himself  "  what  a  shame  that  would  be  for  his  parents."2 

The  two  letters  he  addressed  to  Spalatin  and  Melanchthon  a 
few  days  after  his  arrival  in  Augsburg  and  before  his  first  examina- 
tion, gave  proof  of  the  strange  mystical  tendency  which  also 
appears  in  the  fragment  mentioned  above  ;  they  show  how  he 
overcomes  the  inward  voice  which  urges  him  to  submit,  and  also 
the  importunities  of  his  anxious  friends  ;  they  also  show  how, 
even  then,  he  was  prepared  to  take  a  certain  step,  should  the 
demands  appear  to  him  too  great  :  "I  shall  assuredly  appeal  to 
a  General  Council."3  He  admits  that  he  was  "  wavering  between 
hope  and  fear  "  and,  in  order  to  stimulate  his  own  courage,  he 
draws  a  picture  in  these  letters  of  two  of  the  terrifying  qualities  of 
these  "  Italians  "  before  whose  representative  (i.e.  Cajetan)  he  is 
to  defend  himself. 

We  must  try  to  place  ourselves  in  his  position  and  to  appreciate 
his  prejudices. 

In  the  first  place,  he  relentlessly  accuses  his  adversaries  of 
avarice  and  greed  in  everything  ;  unfortunately  his  knowledge 
of  the  Indulgence  business  had  furnished  sufficient  cause  for 
reproaches  and  complaints  against  the  Church  authorities  in  that 
respect.4  Secondly,  he  finds  fault  with  the  "  ignorance  "  of  his 
opponents,  and  here  he  undoubtedly  excites  himself  quite  wrongly 
and  unnecessarily  over  their  supposed  senseless  and  one-sided 
Scholasticism.  In  his  letter  to  Melanchthon  he  exclaims,  as 
though  to  reassure  himself  :  "  Italy  lies  in  Egyptian  darkness, 
her  animosity  to  learning  and  culture  is  unbounded.  So  greatly 
do  they  misapprehend  Christ  and  all  that  is  Christ's.  And  yet 
these  are  our  teachers  and  masters  in  faith  and  morals.  The 
anger  of  God  is  thus  fulfilled  in  us  where  He  says  :  '  I  will  give 
children  to  be  their  princes,  and  the  effeminate  shall  rule  over 
them.'  Good-bye,  my  Philip,  and  turn  aside  God's  anger  by  holy 
prayers."  The  supposed  want  of  sympathy  with  learning  and 
culture  of  which  Luther  accuses  the  Italians  in  this  letter  to  Philip 
Melanchthon  is  surely  most  untrue,  and  was  no  doubt  intended 
to  strengthen  Melanchthon,  the  weak  and  wavering  Humanist, 
in  his  allegiance  to  Luther's  party,  for  Luther,  notwithstanding 
his  anxieties,  had  not  lost  his  cunning.  The  reproach  against 

1  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  238. 

2  "  Colloquia,"  ed.  Bindseil,  2,  p.  175. 

3  To  Spalatin  from  Augsburg,  October  10,   1518,  "  Briefwechsel," 
1,  p.  242. 

4  Ibid.,  "  Ecdesia  Romano  auro  insatiabiliter  eget  et  vorando  assidue 
sitim  auget." 


THE   AUGSBURG  TRIAL  357 

Italy  and  Rome,  where  at  that  time  Humanism  was  flourishing 
as  nowhere  else,  can  at  most  only  apply  to  the  stiffness  of  the  old 
debased  Scholasticism,  and  perhaps  to  a  certain  backwardness  in 
biblical  studies.  Such  blemishes  afforded  him  a  welcome  handle. 
"  I  will  rather  perish,"  he  assures  Melanchthon,  the  enthusiastic 
scholar,  "  than  withdraw  my  true  theses  and  help  to  destroy 
learning."  "  I  go,  should  it  please  the  Lord,  to  be  sacrificed  for 
you  and  your  young  men." 

He  still  clings  to  the  idea  of  being  one  with  the  Church  in  his 
theological  views.  "  If  they  can  prove  to  me  that  I  have  spoken 
differently  from  what  the  Holy  Roman  Church  teaches,  I  will  at 
once  pronounce  sentence  against  myself  and  beat  a  retreat,  but," 
he  adds,  "  there  lies  the  knot."1  A  knot  tied  by  himself.  Strange, 
indeed,  is  the  method  he  proposes  for  cutting  it  :  "If  that 
Cardinal  [Cajetan]  insists  on  the  private  opinions  of  St.  Thomas 
more  strongly  than  is  compatible  with  the  doctrine  and  authority 
of  the  Church,  I  shall  not  yield  to  him  until  the  Church  withdraws 
from  her  earlier  standpoint  upon  which  I  have  taken  up  my 
position." 

How  greatly  the  applause  with  which  he  was  meeting  every- 
where worked  upon  him  psychologically,  confirming  him  in  his 
resistance,  came  out  clearly  at  Augsburg. 

It  was  only  on  this  journey  and  at  Augsburg  itself  that  he 
became  aware  what  a  celebrity  his  action  had  made  him.  He 
alludes  to  this  in  the  above-mentioned  letter  to  Melanchthon, 
where  he  also  reveals  a  nattering  self-complacency  :  "  The  only 
thing  that  is  new  and  wonderful  here  is,  that  the  town  rings  with 
my  name.  All  want  to  see  the  man  who,  like  a  new  Herostratus, 
has  kindled  such  a  big  blaze." 

Cardinal  Cajetan,  after  making  vain  representations  to 
Luther,  finally  demanded  the  withdrawal  of  two  pro- 
positions which  he  had  plainly  taught  and  acknowledged 
as  his.  The  first  was  his  denial  that  the  treasure  of  the 
merits  of  Christ  and  the  saints  was  the  foundation  of 
Indulgences  ;  the  second  was  the  statement  which  appeared 
in  the  "  Resolutions,"  that  the  sacraments  of  the  Church 
owed  their  efficacy  only  to  faith.  These  were  points  in 
which  he  had  manifestly  deviated  from  the  Catholic  teaching 
and,  to  boot,  matters  of  supreme  doctrinal  importance  ;  as 
a  professor  of  theology  Luther,  moreover,  had  bound  himself 
to  submit  to  the  teaching  authority  of  the  Church. 

His  final  answer  to  the  Papal  legate  was,  that  he  could  not 
recant  unless  he  were  convinced  that  he  had  said  something 
against  Holy  Scripture,  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  the 
Papal  definitions,  or  sound  reason. 

Then  followed  his  famous  secret  flight  from  Augsburg  to 
1  In  the  letter  quoted  to  Spalatin,  p.  240  f. 


358  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Wittenberg.  Staupitz,  who  had  stood  by  him  at  Augsburg, 
dispensed  him  for  the  journey  from  any  part  of  the  Rule 
which  might  have  proved  to  his  disadvantage,  even  from  the 
wearing  of  the  Augustinian  habit.  This  Superior  had  again 
shown  himself  at  Augsburg  as  a  man  of  half-measures  who 
allowed  his  prejudice  for  Luther  to  outweigh  the  demands 
of  the  Church  and  of  his  Order. 

Luther  caused  his  Appeal  to  the  Pope  "  better  instructed  " 
to  be  presented  to  the  Cardinal  at  Augsburg.  He  intended, 
as  almost  at  the  same  time  he  confided  to  Spalatin,  to  make 
an  appeal  to  the  future  Council  only  after  the  Pope,  "  in  the 
plenitude  of  his  power,  or  rather  of  his  tyranny,"  had 
rejected  his  first  appeal.1  Meanwhile  he  does  not  know,  and 
this  makes  him  waver  between  hope  and  fear,  whether  he  will 
be  able  to  remain  at  the  University  of  Wittenberg.  Will 
the  Elector  have  power  to  retain  him  in  his  office  ?  Will  it 
be  possible  for  him  to  continue  to  lead  a  safe  existence 
under  his  sovereign,  and,  above  all,  find  protection  in  the 
present  danger  from  imprisonment  and  the  violent  measures 
threatened  ?  At  this,  the  turning-point  of  his  life,  these 
were  the  most  pressing  questions. 

The  duty  of  providing  for  his  safety  and  furthering  his 
cause  devolved  principally  on  the  Court  Chaplain,  Spalatin. 
Luther,  in  his  letters  to  Spalatin,  which  duly  reached  the 
Elector  either  as  they  were  written  or  in  extracts,  wisely 
avoids  any  unseasonable  demands  which  could  only  have 
been  prejudicial  to  his  interests ;  on  the  contrary,  he 
declares  in  well-chosen  language,  which  was  certain  to 
please  the  Elector,  that  he  is  ready  to  take  up  the  pilgrim's 
staff  should  it  be  necessary  for  the  good  of  the  cause  ;  the 
verbal  commentary  on  his  letters  was  undertaken  at  Court 
by  his  able  clerical  friend. 

"  I  am  filled  with  joy  and  peace,"  he  writes  to  the  courtier 
in  the  letter  above  mentioned,  "  so  that  I  can  only  wonder 
how  my  skirmish  [the  trial  at  Augsburg]  appears  as  some- 
thing great  to  many  esteemed  men."  If,  however,  joy  and 
contentment  reigned  in  him  at  that  time,  this  was  principally 
owing  to  his  natural  relief  at  his  escape  from  the  dreaded 
town  of  Augsburg. 

1  On  the  day  of  his  return  to  Wittenberg,  October  31,  1518  (the 
anniversary  of  the  day  the  Indulgence  theses  had  appeared),  "  Brief- 
wechsel,"  1,  p.  273. 


POPE   WORSE   THAN  TURK         359 

In  feverish  haste,  without  awaiting  the  result  of  his  first 
appeal,  he  published,  November  28,  1518,  a  new  appeal  to  a 
future  General  Council. 

An  appeal  to  an  (Ecumenical  Council  was  prohibited  by 
old  laws  of  the  Church,  because,  at  the  commencement  of 
any  movement  directed  against  the  authority  of  the  Church, 
it  appeared  likely  to  render  all  efforts  for  the  composing  of 
differences  illusory.  It  was  rightly  felt  that  whoever  came 
in  conflict  with  the  Church  would  make  every  effort  to 
reserve  the  decision  of  his  cause  to  some  future  Council, 
more  especially  when  he  is  able  meanwhile  to  devote  himself 
freely  to  the  furtherance  of  his  ideas,  and  when  the  speedy 
summoning  of  a  Council  is  very  doubtful.  The  claim 
that  an  (Ecumenical  Council  should  be  called  to  pronounce 
upon  every  new  opinion  was  so  extravagant  that  the 
prohibition  found  general  approval. 

At  the  time  of  Luther's  advent  on  the  scene  the  prospect 
of  a  General  Council,  owing  to  the  dissensions  among  the 
Christian  Powrers,  had  retreated  into  the  far  distance,  and 
even  though  it  had  been  possible  for  the  bishops  throughout 
the  whole  world  to  assemble,  the  meeting,  according  to 
ancient  custom  and  the  regulations  of  canon  law,  would  have 
taken  place  under  the  Pope's  presidency.  Even  in  this  event 
Luther  can,  accordingly,  have  cherished  but  small  hope  of 
winning  the  day. 

His  deep  distrust  of  Rome  we  find  expressed  in  the  letter, 
written  almost  simultaneously,  to  his  trusted  friend  Wence- 
laus  Link,  the  Nuremberg  Augustinian,  to  whom  he  was 
forwarding  his  account  of  what  had  taken  place  at  Augsburg 
(Acta  Augustana) :  "  My  pen  is  giving  birth  to  much 
greater  things  than  these  Acta.  I  know  not  whence  these 
thoughts  come  to  me  ;  the  cause  [i.e.  the  conflict],  to  my 
thinking,  has  not  yet  commenced  in  earnest  and  much  less  can 
these  gentlemen  from  Rome  look  to  see  the  end.  I  shall 
send  my  little  works  to  you  so  that  you  may  see  if  I  am 
right  in  surmising  that  the  real  Anti-Christ  whom  Paul 
describes  (2  Thess.  ii.  3  ff.)  rules  at  the  Roman  Court.  I  think 
I  can  prove  that  to-day  he  is  worse  than  the  Turks."  1 
Whoever  could  speak  in  this  way  had  already  cut  himself 
adrift  or  was  on  the  point  of  so  doing. 

1  On  December  11,  1518,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  316. 


360  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

The  powerful  forces  within  the  fiery  and  vivacious  Monk 
seethed  like  the  crater  of  a  volcano.  The  Lecture-hall  at 
Wittenberg  again  resounded  Avith  his  eloquent  and  vehement 
outbursts.  The  number  of  students  at  the  University 
increased  to  an  unexpected  extent.  "  They  surround  my 
desk  like  busy  ants,"  Luther  declares  in  a  letter.1 

He  does  not  know  whence  the  ideas  he  pours  forth  come  to 
him,  but  he  sees  daily  more  clearly  that  they  are  from 
Christ.  "  I  see,"  so  he  wrote  to  Staupitz,  his  Superior, 
"  they  are  determined  [at  Rome]  to  condemn  me  ;  but 
Christ  on  His  part  is  resolved  not  to  yield  in  me.  May  His 
holy  and  blessed  will  be  done,  yea,  may  it  be  done.  Pray 
for  me."  2  In  the  same  way,  though  in  stronger  terms,  he 
informs  his  friend  Johann  Lang  soon  afterwards  :  "  Our  Eck 
is  again  preparing  to  assail  me  ;  it  will  come  to  this,  that, 
with  the  help  of  Christ,  I  shall  carry  out  what  I  have  long 
since  planned,  namely,  to  strike  a  deadly  blow  at  the  Roman 
vipers  by  means  of  a  powerful  book.  Hitherto  I  have 
merely  played  and  jested  with  Rome,  albeit  she  has  smarted 
as  keenly  under  it  as  though  it  had  been  meant  in  deadly 
earnest."3  "So  God  carries  me  away,"  we  shall  soon  after 
hear  him  say.  "  God  draws  me.  I  cannot  control  myself." 
"  God  must  see  to  it,  what  He  is  working  through  me.  .  .  . 
Why  has  He  not  instructed  me  otherwise  ?  "  He  fancies  he 
feels  "  the  mighty  breathing  of  the  Spirit,"  and  little  by 
little  he  is  carried  away  by  the  conviction  that  he  is  God's 
messenger  and  the  leader  of  a  cause  which  "  is  not  of  man's 
invention."4 

During  the  exciting  years  of  1517  and  1518  Luther,  in 
addition  to  his  polemical  works,  published  several  popular, 
practical  handbooks  on  religion.  They  consisted  chiefly  of 
collections  and  enlargements  of  the  sermons  which  he  still 
continued  to  preach  from  time  to  time.  Their  publication 
strengthened  in  many  the  impression,  that  the  man  whom 
some  denounced  as  a  theological  rebel  was,  on  the  contrary, 
simply  zealous  for  the  salvation  of  souls  and  only  seeking 
the  spiritual  profit  of  his  neighbour. 

In  the  spring  of  1517  he  published,   for  instance,   the 

1  "  Briefwechsel,"  1,  p.  317.       2  On  December  13, 1518,  ibid.,  p.  320. 

8  On  February  2,  1519,  ibid.,  p.  410. 

1  The  passages  will  be  given  more  fully  later. 


DEVOTIONAL   WORKS  361 

German  exposition  of  the  Seven  Penitential  Psalms, 
already  referred  to,  a  book  which,  as  he  wrote  to  Christopher 
Scheurl,  was  intended  for  the  rough  Saxon  "  to  whom  the 
Christian  teaching  cannot  be  presented  too  fully."1  If  the 
work  pleases  no  one,  he  says,  then  it  will  please  him  all  the 
more.2  In  this  work  he  speaks  in  heartfelt  tones,  especially 
when  enlarging  upon  the  "  Word  of  Grace  "  and  describing 
the  riches  of  Christ.3  Another  book,  his  "  Exposition  of 
the  Our  Father  for  the  simple  laity,"  4  first  appeared  in 
1517  through  Agricola,  then  again  in  1518  after  having  been 
amended  by  the  author.  In  the  preface  he  says  amicably :  "  I 
should  like,  if  it  were  possible,  to  render  a  service  even  to  my 
adversaries  ;  for  my  desire  is  to  be  profitable  to  all  men  and 
harmful  to  none."  The  object  of  such  assurances  is,  however, 
too  evident,  and  they  are,  moreover,  flatly  contradicted  by 
his  actual  behaviour  towards  his  opponents. 

To  pass  over  other  pious  instructions  which  his  amazing 
power  for  work  created,  he  also  published  in  1518  the 
detailed  Latin  notes  of  the  sermons  on  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, which  he  had  delivered  in  151 6-17. 5  Many 
portions  of  this  book  are  really  useful  and  hardly  to  be 
distinguished  from  what  a  true  spiritual  guide  of  souls 
would  write,  but  they  also  contain  other  matter  which 
necessarily  challenged  dispute.  In  most  of  his  explanations 
he  gives  a  very  clever,  popular  and  perfectly  correct  present- 
ment of  the  contents  of  the  commandments  and  the  motives 
for  keeping  them  ;  he  goes,  however,  too  far,  for  instance,  in 
his  ruthless,  and  occasionally  even  contemptuous  opposition 
to  the  abuses  connected  with  the  veneration  of  the  saints. 
The  tone  which  he  here  adopts  in  his  strictures  could  not 
have  favourable  results,  and  he  would  have  done  better  had 
he  devoted  himself  to  the  criticism  of  the  superstitious 
practices  to  which  he  had  alluded  shortly  before  in  con- 
nection with  the  errors  of  the  Middle  Ages.6  Oldecop,  who 
was  not  unkindly  disposed,  complains  that  "  in  the  matter  of 
the  veneration  of  the  saints,  Luther  was  not  in  agreement 
with  the  Catholic  Church."7 

On  May  6,  1517,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  97. 

To  Johann  Lang,  March  1,  1517,  ibid.,  p.  88. 

See  the  passage  in  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  219  ff. 

Printed  ibid.,  1,  p.  74  ff.      Erl.  ed.,  21,  p.  156  ff. 

"  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  398  ff. 

Ibid.,  p.  411  ff.  7  "  Chronik,"  p.  45. 


362  LUTHER  THE  MONK 

In  the  book  in  question,  where  he  treats  of  the  6th  (7th) 
Commandment,  he  is  very  severe  and  exact,  indeed,  rather 
too  exact  and  detailed  in  his  enumeration  and  denunciation 
of  the  various  kinds  of  sins  of  the  flesh.  He  speaks  with 
rhetorical  emphasis  and,  it  must  be  admitted,  with  a  wealth 
of  earnest  thought,  against  the  habit  of  filthy  talking  \vhich 
was  gaining  ground  at  that  time.1  Here,  for  example,  after 
the  most  solemn  warnings  against  giving  scandal  to  the  little 
ones,  he  lets  fall  these  golden  words  with  regard  to  reform  : 
"  If  the  Church  is  to  blossom  again,  the  beginning  must  be 
made  by  a  careful  training  of  the  young."2  Among  other 
things,  Luther  treats  of  the  temptations  which  the  devout 
man  abhors  and  must  abhor,  although  he  can  never  escape 
them,  and  gives  vent  to  the  paradox  :  "  True  chastity  is 
therefore  to  be  found  in  sensuality,  and  the  more  filthy  the 
sensuality,  the  more  beautiful  the  chastity,"3  surely  a 
delightful  instance  of  our  author's  propensity  to  unusual 
language.  Somewhat  obscurely,  indeed,  he  also  speaks 
against  the  freedom  of  the  will  to  do  what  is  good  ;  Paul 
invokes  the  mercy  of  God  against  the  temptation  "  in  the 
body  of  this  death  "  (Rom.  vii.  24  f.),  and  he,  Luther, 
would  lament  over  the  "  poison  of  death  within  him." 
"  Where  then  are  those  who  vaunt  their  free  will  ?  Why 
do  they  not  set  themselves  free  from  concupiscence  as  soon 
as  they  please  ?  Why  will  they  not,  yea,  why  are  they  unable 
even  to  will  ?  .  .  .  Because  their  will  is  already  elsewhere, 
dragged  away  as  a  captive."4 

4.  The  Disputation  of  Leipzig  (1519).     Miltitz. 
Questionable  Reports 

The  Leipzig  Disputation,  which  commenced  on  June  27, 
1519,  and  the  origin  and  theological  course  of  which  has 
been  often  enough  depicted,  as  was  to  be  expected,  merely 
induced  Luther  to  proceed  yet  further  with  his  revolutionary 
theology. 

The  Pleissenburg  of  Leipzig  has  become  since  the  Disputa- 
tion between  Luther  and  Carlstadt  on  the  one  side  and  Eck 
on  the  other,  a  memorable  monument  of  German  history. 
The  great  hall  of  this  castle  belonging  to  Duke  George  was 
hung  with  splendid  tapestries  ;  a  guard  of  the  citizens  kept 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  490.  2  Ibid.,  p.  494. 

*  Ibid,,  p.  486.  *  Ibid.,  p.  485. 


LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  363 

watch  before  the  walls  of  the  castle,  for  the  Court,  as  well  as 
the  city,  wished  to  insure  the  safety  of  those  conducting 
the  wordy  tournament  which  was  to  be  held  in  the  public 
name.  In  addition  to  the  professors  of  the  University  of 
Leipzig  and  the  guests  from  Wittenberg,  students  as  well  as 
masters,  many  others  were  present,  brought  together  partly 
by  curiosity,  partly  by  interest  in  one  or  other  of  the 
religious  parties.  The  Duke,  the  guests  of  distinction,  and 
the  sworn  stenographers  had  special  places  assigned  to  them. 
Two  professorial  chairs  stood  facing  each  other.  On  that 
belonging  to  the  Wittenberg  party  Carlstadt,  who  had 
arranged  the  affair,  took  his  seat  and  disputed  with  Eck 
for  four  whole  days  on  man's  free  \vill  and  its  efficacy  with, 
and  under,  grace. 

Then,  on  July  4,  Luther  succeeded  him  and  at  once 
launched  into  the  theological  controversy  on  the  question 
of  the  Primacy  of  the  Pope.  As  in  the  case  of  Carlstadt, 
Eck  stood  his  ground  without  assistance  until  the  Disputa- 
tion closed  on  July  14. 

The  Acts  of  the  debate  were  to  have  been  submitted  to  the 
Universities  of  Erfurt  and  Paris  for  decision  as  to  the  winner, 
but  this  was  never  done.  The  final  impression  made  on  the 
minds  of  the  audience  was  that  Eck  had  borne  away  the 
palm.  He  had  repelled  the  often  virulent  attacks  of  two 
adversaries  with  untiring  mental  and  physical  energy,  and 
had  displayed  throughout  a  more  extensive  and  ready 
acquaintance  with  the  theologians,  the  decisions  of  the 
Church,  the  Fathers  and  the  Bible  than  either  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  new  opinions.  Of  a  powerful  and  imposing 
exterior,  with  a  strong  sonorous  voice,  he  dominated  the 
course  of  the  Disputation  by  his  clear-headedness,  his  com- 
posure and  deliberation,  whereas  Carlstadt  was  too  hurried 
and  confused  and  unable  to  produce  the  necessary  positive 
proofs,  and  Luther,  by  his  over-confidence,  his  rhetoric  and 
the  habitual  violence  of  his  attacks  on  his  enemies  gave 
umbrage  to  many.  The  greatest  stumbling-block  to 
Luther's  success  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  principal  point, 
which  was  to  be  decisive  for  his  standpoint  towards  the 
Church,  was  still,  even  to  himself,  as  Protestant  writers 
express  it,  "  in  process  of  inward  development,"  whereas 
"  Eck  could  take  his  stand  on  a  sound  and  solid  basis."  1 
1  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1,  p.  245. 


364  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

This  principal  point  was  the  question  of  the  recognition 
of  the  Church  and  her  teaching  office.  Eck  succeeded  in 
forcing  public  statements  from  his  opponent  which  he  would 
perhaps  have  still  preferred  to  keep  in  the  background,  but 
which  were,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  outcome  of  his  position. 
On  the  second  day  of  the  controversy  between  Luther  and 
Eck,  on  July  5,  the  question  of  the  exercise  of  the  Church's 
power  and  doctrinal  authority  in  the  condemnation  of 
Hus's  erroneous  teaching  came  under  discussion.  Luther 
was  now  obliged  to  express  his  views  on  the  condemnation 
of  the  "  Bohemian  heretics."  Driven  into  a  corner  he 
declared,  that  among  the  Husite  doctrines  condemned  by 
the  Council  of  Constance  there  were  some  very  Christian 
and  evangelical  propositions  ;  that  the  Council  was  wrong 
in  asserting  that  everyone  who  wished  to  be  a  member  of 
the  Church  must  believe  in  the  Primacy  of  the  Papacy  ; 
that  we  must  learn  for  ourselves  from  Holy  Scripture  what 
is  of  Divine  Right ;  that  the  opinion  of  an  individual 
Christian  must  carry  greater  weight  than  that  of  either 
Pope  or  Council  if  established  on  better  grounds  ;  that 
Councils  not  only  might  err  in  matters  of  faith,  but  that 
they  actually  had  erred,  as  in  the  case  of  that  of  Constance. 

Such  unheard-of  admissions  caused  the  greatest  sensation. 
Bluff  Duke  George,  on  hearing  Luther's  assertion  that  the 
Christian  doctrines  of  Hus  had  been  unfairly  condemned, 
exclaimed  in  a  voice  loud  enough  to  be  heard  throughout 
the  great  hall :  "A  plague  on  it !  "  shaking  his  head  at  the 
same  time  and  planting  his  hands  on  his  hips. 

It  was  an  easy  task  for  Eck  to  disprove  on  theological 
grounds  the  statements  of  Luther. 

The  Disputation  had  at  least  the  effect  of  clearing  up  the 
position,  and  arousing  misgivings  in  many  of  those  who 
hitherto  had  been  partisans  of  the  Wittenberg  Doctor. 

Luther  himself  wrote  in  a  very  discontented  frame  of 
mind  to  Spalatin  regarding  the  Disputation,  saying  that 
time  had  been  wasted  in  the  useless  affair,  and  that  Eck  and 
the  theologians  of  Leipzig  only  sought  worldly  honour  and  on 
this  everything  had  suffered  shipwreck.  Only  the  discussion 
on  the  Primacy  (i.e.  that  very  one  at  which  the  momentous 
admissions  were  made)  had  been  fruitful  and  productive. 
This  is  his  own  impudent  way  of  describing  his  position  as 
the  only  right  one.  "  Hardly  anything  else,"  he  continues, 


EFFORTS   OF  MILTITZ  365 

"  was  treated  worthily.  Eck  was  applauded,  he  triumphs 
and  reigns,  but  an  end  shall  be  put  to  this  by  my  publica- 
tion ;  for  as  the  Disputation  was  badly  conducted  I  shall 
have  the  Resolutions  to  the  Disputation  theses  reprinted. 
These  people  of  Leipzig  neither  greeted  us  nor  visited  us, 
but  treated  us  as  deadly  enemies  [and  yet  every  considera- 
tion had  been  shown  him  that  circumstances  permitted]. 
Eck  they  supplied  with  an  escort,  they  surrounded  him 
constantly,  honoured  him  with  feasts  and  invitations, 
presented  him  with  a  coat  and  a  costly  mantle,  rode  out 
with  him  on  pleasant  excursions,  in  fact  did  everything 
imaginable- — to  disgrace  us."  "  There  you  have  the  whole 
tragedy  ...  it  began  ill  and  ended  worse.  ...  As  a  rule, 
I  control  my  ill-humour,  but  here  I  cannot  help  pouring  out 
my  grudge,  because  after  all  I  am  human  and  see  how  the 
shamelessness  of  our  adversaries  and  their  poisonous  hatred 
of  so  holy  a  cause  have  grown  beyond  measure."  1 

Obstinately  adhering  to  his  standpoint  and  embittered 
as  he  was  by  the  Leipzig  "  tragedy,"  Luther  would  lend  no 
ear  to  the  proposals  for  reconciliation  and  settlement 
suggested  by  the  Papal  Chamberlain  Carl  von  Miltitz. 

His  attempts  in  this  direction  had  commenced  even 
before  the  Disputation.  Their  continuance  revealed  on  the 
one  hand  Luther's  obstinacy,  and  on  the  other  the  inability 
of  this  lay  Papal  official- — whose  motives  were  merely 
political- — to  see  the  real  seriousness  of  the  matter.  The 
latter,  in  order  to  secure  apparent  victories,  went  beyond 
his  instructions  and  the  intentions  of  those  who  had  en- 
trusted him  with  his  mission.  Luther  on  his  part  did  not 
shrink  from  diplomatic  concessions  which  could  not  injure 
him,  but  which  anyone  conversant  with  the  conditions  must 
have  seen  to  be  impracticable.  The  easy  triumphs  of  which 
Miltitz's  shortsighted  love  of  peace  was  productive  were 
thus  of  very  doubtful  value.2 

1  To  Spalatin,  July  20,  1519,  from  Wittenberg,  "  Briefwechsel,"  2, 
p.  85  f.     Cp.   letter  to  the  same,  August   15,   1518,  ibid.,  p.   103  ff. 
especially  p.  117. 

2  Cp.  H.  A.  Creutrberg,  "Karl  von  Miltitz,"  1907  ("  Studien  und 
Darstellungen    aus    dem    Gebiete   der   Gesch.,"    ed.    Grauert,    Bd.    6, 
Heft.    1).      The   Chamberlain,    whose   only   recommendation   was   his 
aristocratic  Saxon  birth,  had  been  entrusted  with  the  delivery  of  the 
Golden  Rose  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony.     That  he  "  undertook  the 
role   of   intermediary   on   his   own   initiative,"    as   has    recently  been 
asserted  by  Protestants,  is,  according  to  Creutzberg,  incorrect.  The  most 


366  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Luther's  edition  of  the  Latin  Commentary  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians,  which  appeared  in  September,  1519, 
assumed  all  the  more  importance  in  his  eyes.  In  this  work, 
written  in  the  language  of  the  learned  (above,  p.  306),  he 
undertook  to  defend  on  the  widest  basis  and  before  cultured 
men  of  every  clime  his  doctrines  concerning  grace  and 
salvation,  faith  and  righteousness. 

Here  we  have  a  public  manifestation  not  merely  of  the 
doctrines  which  lay  at  the  back  of  the  schism  he  had 
stirred  up  by  his  controversy  with  Tetzcl,  but  also  of  his 
wrong  new  view  concerning  Holy  Scripture. 

In  the  matter  of  style,  Luther  was  more  successful  in  his 
shorter  works,  particularly  in  his  German  controversial 
pamphlets.  Writers  who  opposed  him,  such  as  Eck,  Emscr, 
Dungersheim,  Alveld,  Hoogstraaten,  Prierias  he  readily 
withstood  in  words  full  of  fire  and  imagination,  although  his 
arguments,  as  a  rule,  left  much  to  be  desired  and  were  not 
atoned  for  by  his  passionate  invective.  His  main  contention, 
voiced  in  a  more  or  less  coarse  form,  is,  however,  always  the 
following  :  the  proofs  which  you  adduce  from  the  teaching 
of  the  Church  and  the  Fathers  do  not  move  me  because 

unfortunate  mistake  he  made  was  not  to  insist  upon  Luther's  recanta- 
tion (cp.  S.  Merkle,  "  Reformationsgeschichtliche  Streitfragen," 
Munich,  1904,  p.  51),  contenting  himself  with  Luther's  illusory  ex- 
planation of  the  end  of  February,  1519  ("  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  242,  p.  10  ff.), 
published  as  a  pamphlet.  In  this  Luther  simply  speaks  of  the  Papal 
power  as  a  thing  of  which  the  existence  must  be  taken  for  granted,  and 
emphasises  in  general  terms  the  duty  of  charity  which  forbids  schism 
without  due  cause  !  This  statement  has  been  erroneously  regarded 
by  Catholics  as  an  admission  of  the  Primacy  by  Luther,  as  a  "  wonder- 
ful confession  which  the  evidence  of  the  facts  wrung  from  the  heretic." 
With  respect  to  this  explanation,  which,  as  Luther  himself  says,  was 
destined  for  the  "  simple  people,"  Kostlin-Kawerau's  "  Luther- 
Biographie,"  1,  p.  227,  says  :  "  In  this  way  did  Luther  fulfil  his  promise 
[to  Miltitz]  of  exhorting  to  obedience  to  Rome.  He  exhorts  to  sub- 
mission to  this  power  because,  according  to  him,  it  merely  extends  to 
externals.  With  regard  to  anything  further,  its  origin,  its  character, 
and  its  extent,  he  reserves  to  himself  and  to  learned  men  generally, 
liberty  of  judgment.  Of  the  important  assertions  which  he  had  already 
made  on  this  point  in  various  passages  in  his  works,  none  are  here  with- 
drawn." And  yet,  in  this  remarkable  document  composed  at  the  in- 
stigation of  Miltitz,  he  calls  himself  "  a  submissive  and  obedient  son 
of  the  Holy  Christian  Churches  in  which,  by  God's  help,  I  will  die," 
and  declares  :  "I  may  say  with  a  clear  conscience  that  I  have  never 
imagined  anything  [hostile]  with  regard  to  the  Papacy  or  its  power." 
He  is,  nevertheless,  as  he  even  there  states,  sure  of  his  own  "  rock," 
and  ready  to  stand  up  for  it  like  Paul,  Athanasius,  and  Augustine,  even 
though  he  should  be  left  quite  alone.  God  is  able  to  speak  through  one 
against  all,  even  as  He  once  spoke  through  the  mouth  of  a  she-ass. 


"PROVE   ALL   THINGS".  367 

Holy  Scripture,  upon  which  I  take  my  stand,  is  above  both 
Church  and  Fathers. 

By  the  Holy  Scripture  he,  moreover,  persists  in  under- 
standing his  own  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  By  a  tragic 
mistake  he  has  come  to  confound  his  own  personal  and 
altogether  subjective  interpretation  with  the  objective 
"  Word  of  God  "  in  the  Bible.  In  the  same  way  he  makes 
not  the  slightest  distinction  between  the  meaning  of  the 
"  gospel,"  which  he  fancies  he  has  discovered,  and  the  actual 
Gospel  itself. 

Catholics  urged  against  Luther  that  the  Church  had  been 
entrusted  with  the  safeguarding  of  the  Holy  Books,  with  the 
handing  down  of  the  canon  of  Scripture  and  the  correct  inter- 
pretation of  the  same,  and  that,  from  the  earliest  Christian  times, 
the  Faithful  had  always  left  to  the  living  Tradition,  the  General 
Councils  and  the  Supreme  Teacher  of  the  Church — the  Vicar  of 
Christ  and  inheritor  of  the  powers  of  Peter — the  final  decision  in 
doctrinal  questions  and  the  correct  and  binding  interpretation  of 
Holy  Scripture. 

What  Luther  asserted,  for  instance,  in  his  final  letter  to 
Dungersheim,  brought  the  central  dogma,  namely,  that  of  the 
teaching  office  of  the  Church,  into  still  clearer  light :  "  You  have 
nothing  else  on  your  lips,"  he  says  to  Dungersheim  and  to  all 
Catholics  generally,  "  but  the  words  Church,  Church,  heretic, 
heretic,  and  you  will  not  admit  that  the  injunction  :  '  Prove  all 
things,  hold  fast  that  which  is  good'  (1  Thess.  v.  21),  applies  to 
any.  But  when  we  ask  for  the  Church,  you  show  us  one  man,  the 
Pope,  to  whom  you  entrust  everything  [i.e.  all  decisions  on 
matters  of  faith],  and  yet  you  do  not  prove  by  one  word  that  his 
faith  is  unchangeable.  Yet  we  have  discovered  in  the  Pope's 
Decretals  more  heresies  than  any  heretic  ever  invented.  You 
ought  to  prove  your  standpoint  and  instead  of  this  you  always 
start  from  the  same  premiss."1  Theologians,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
had  never  claimed  for  all  the  contents  of  the  Decretals  a  rank 
among  the  solemn  pronouncements  on  faith.  What  is,  however, 
more  important  is  that  Luther  places  the  individual  above  the 
Church  and  the  Primacy  appointed  by  God  ;  he  puts  the  Scrip- 
tures in  his  hand,  to  interpret  as  he  will.  He  continues  as  follows  : 
"  You  ought  to  prove  that  the  Church  of  God  is  with  you  and 
nowhere  else  in  the  world.  We  want  the  Scriptures  for  our  judge, 
but  you  wish  to  be  judges  of  the  Scriptures."2 

In  this  connection,  seeking  to  justify  the  bitterness  of  his 
polemics,  he  unwittingly  gives  an  excellent  portrait  of  himself  : 
"  You  misinterpret  the  words  I  speak,  just  as  the  ass  in  your 
midst  [Alveld]  is  doing  at  the  present  moment.  This  seems  to  be 
the  way  with  you  people  of  Leipzig,  you  read  without  attention, 

1  "  Brief wechsel,"  2,  p.  163.  On  the  date  see  Kostlin-Kawerau,  1, 
p.  258.  *  Ibid. 


368  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

judge  presumptuously,  and  are  too  stupid  to  understand  the 
writings  of  others.  Maybe  my  patience  will  come  to  an  end  and 
make  room  for  anger,  for  I  am  after  all  as  human  as  you ;  you  sit 
there  calmly  and  nag  at  me  while  I  am  oppressed  with  work  and 
everyone  shows  me  his  teeth,  and,  forsooth,  humility  is  expected 
of  me  while  I  am  being  attacked  by  ravening  wolves.  The  weight 
of  the  globe  presses  upon  me  ('  orbis  me  premit'),  and  if  I  do  so 
much  as  nod,  you  cannot  endure  it ;  if  at  last  I  turn  round  upon 
you,  I  am  accused  and  found  fault  with  on  all  sides.  I  write  this 
to  show  my  zeal  for  peace  and  concord  ;  why,  in  God's  name,  am 
I  not  allowed  to  enjoy  them  ?  " 

He  himself  shows  us  later  in  what  way  he  was  desirous  of 
"  peace  and  concord."  From  the  words  we  have  just  quoted  he 
seems,  strange  to  say,  to  think  that  the  Roman  party  had  no 
right  to  fight  for  the  great  and  sacred  interests  of  Mother  Church, 
nor  to  repel  the  attacks  he  was  making  upon  so  much  which  had 
hitherto  been  believed. 

It  is  exceedingly  sad  to  see  how  Luther,  the  once  zealous 
religious,  has  become  alienated  more  and  more  from  the 
heart  of  the  Church,  from  her  life,  ways  of  thought  and 
feeling.  Passion  for  his  cause,  precipitation,  overstrain, 
both  mental  and  bodily,  the  delusion  that  the  whole  world 
was  watching  the  brave  monk's  daring  move,  all  this  cuts 
him  off,  more  even  than  his  previous  conduct,  from  practical 
association  with  the  Church.  His  growing  lukewarmness  in 
religion  is  paving  the  way  for  his  complete  apostasy. 

He  confesses  that  he  lived  in  a  worldly  turmoil  of  work 
and  distractions,  of  parties  and  feastings  which  led  him 
away  "  to  immoderation,  impropriety  and  negligence." 
Recollection,  penance  and  humility  become  more  and 
more  strangers  to  him,  though  he  can  still  speak  words  of 
piety  ;  everything  is  overcovered  by  the  great  struggle  he 
has  called  into  being ;  the  less  attention  he  devotes  to  the 
duties  of  the  religious  life,  the  more  he  gravitates  to  the 
Electoral  Court,  where  Spalatin  is  ever  busy  seeking  to 
provide  him  with  a  safe  shelter.  This  is  the  talented  man, 
so  the  Catholic  sadly  reminds  himself,  whose  words  might 
have  assisted  in  calling  forth  a  real  reform  within  the  Church, 
if,  agreeably  with  the  spirit  and  rules  of  the  Church,  he  had 
only  appealed  to  the  Faithful  and  their  pastors  with  earnest- 
ness and  deliberation,  with  persistence  and  confidence  in 
God.  Instead  of  this,  he  pushed  forward  heedlessly  in  the 
slippery  path  to  lay  sacrilegious  hands  on  the  doctrine  and 
the  whole  structure  of  the  Church  as  existing  up  to  that 
time. 


DRESDEN  TALES  369 

At  the  close  of  this  chapter  some  remarks  may  perhaps 
be  permitted  on  certain  mistaken  or  misunderstood  tales 
concerning  Luther,  which  belong  to  this  period. 

The  history  of  the  sermon  referred  to  above  (p.  334), 
delivered  by  Luther  at  Dresden  in  July,  1518,  in  the  presence 
of  Duke  George  of  Saxony  has  recently  been  presented  to 
Protestant  readers  in  the  traditional  legendary  form  as 
"  portraying  the  whole  history  of  the  following  centuries." 
If  it  were  really  so  supremely  important,  then  we  ought, 
indeed,  in  our  narrative  to  have  put  this  sermon  in  a  better 
light  and  assigned  it  a  very  different  position.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  however,  its  contents  are  by  no  means  of  any  great 
moment  and  do  not  even  justify  its  description  as  "  the 
trial  sermon  of  the  pale  Augustinian  monk." 

Duke  George  of  Saxony,  so  we  are  told  in  this  new  and  adorned 
version  of  the  incident,  "  had  applied  to  the  Vicar-General  of  the 
Augustinians,  Staupitz,  requesting  that  he  would  procure  for  him 
an  honest  and  learned  preacher,"  and  Staupitz  thereupon  sent 
him  Luther  "  with  a  letter  of  recommendation  in  which  he 
described  him  as  a  highly  gifted  young  man  of  proved  excellence, 
both  as  regards  his  studies  and  his  moral  character."  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  however,  it  is  only  known  that  Luther  happened 
to  be  in  Dresden  on  July  25,  1518,  on  his  way  back  from  the 
Heidelberg  Chapter.  As  he  usually  did,  he  took  advantage  of  the 
opportunity  afforded  him  of  preaching.  Of  the  letters  of  Duke 
George  or  of  Staupitz  history  knows  nothing. 

The  sermon  was  delivered  in  the  castle  ("in  castro")  in  the 
presence  of  the  Court  on  the  aforesaid  day,  which  was  a  Sunday, 
and  also  the  Feast  of  James  the  Greater.1  The  text  was  taken 
from  the  Gospel  for  the  Feast  in  which  our  Saviour  says  to  James 
and  his  brother  :  "  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask  "  (Matt.  xx.  22). 
On  this  text  Luther,  doubtless  in  his  customary  burning  words, 
described  "  the  foolishness  of  people  in  their  prayers,  and  what 
the  true  object  of  prayer  should  be."  This  is  what  he  himself 
tells  us.2  He  introduced  among  other  things  into  the  sermon  a 
story  about  three  virgins,  which,  he  says,  was  "  quite  theological." 
According  to  another  account,  he  did  not  lose  the  opportunity  of 
expressing  the  ideas  which  dominated  him,  namely,  that  those  who 
listen  to  the  Word  of  God  with  an  attentive  mind  are  true 
disciples  of  Christ,  chosen,  and  predestinated  for  life  everlasting, 
and  that  we  must  overcome  "  the  fear  of  God  "  ;  he  no  doubt 
laid  particular  stress  on  faith  and  depreciated  good  works.  It 
does  not  seem  necessary  to  assume  that  there  were  two  different 
sermons.  "  The  evangelical  certainty  of  Salvation,  as  against  the 

1  Luther  to  Spalatin,  January  14,  1519,  "  Brief wechsel,"  1,  p.  351 
*  Ibid. 

I.— 2  B 


370  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

traditional  righteousness  by  works,"  so  runs  the  latest  legendary 
account,  "  shone  forth  from  his  words  more  plainly  than  was 
agreeable  to  the  Duke." 

Duke  George  was,  and  remained,  a  good  Catholic.  His 
opinion  of  Luther's  sermon  is  characteristic  :  "I  would  have 
given  much  money  not  to  have  heard  it,"  so  he  says,  "  because 
such  discourses  make  men  presumptuous."  This  he  repeated 
several  times  at  table  with  great  displeasure.  The  occasion 
which  gave  rise  to  this  remark  was  that  Barbara  von  Sala,  a  lady 
of  the  Court  who  was  present,  praised  the  sermon  as  most 
reassuring,  and  added  that  if  she  could  hear  such  a  sermon  again 
she  would  die  with  a  quiet  mind. 

At  the  Court  much  was  said  in  disparagement  of  the  sermon 
and  the  preacher,  certain  conversations  of  Luther  in  the  town 
seeming  to  have  contributed  to  this.  The  Prior  of  the  Augus- 
tinian  monastery  at  Dresden  wrote  afterwards  to  Luther  telling 
him  that  many  found  fault  with  him  as  unlearned  and  arrogant, 
etc.,  that  the  sermon  in  the  castle  was  made  the  ground  for  all 
sorts  of  reproaches  ;  that  it  was  also  said  that  his  story  of  the  three 
virgins  had  been  directed  against  three  particular  ladies  at  the 
Court,  which  surely  was  not  the  case.  Shortly  after,  when  pre- 
paring for  the  Disputation  at  Leipzig,  Luther  must  evidently  have 
feared  that  the  Duke  was  not  favourably  disposed,  for  lie  wrote 
begging  that,  if  he  had  displeased  him,  he  would  "  graciously 
pardon  everything."  The  Duke  replied  that  he  was  not  aware  of 
"  any  displeasure  ever  conceived  by  us  against  you."  Duke 
George,  who  was  zealous  for  reform,  was  much  in  favour  of 
Luther's  Indulgence  theses  and,  after  having  come  to  an  under- 
standing with  Eck,  he  sanctioned  the  Disputation  at  Leipzig 
notwithstanding  the  objections  of  the  Bishop  and  the  theological 
faculty.1 

We  know  some  details  concerning  Luther's  behaviour  in  the 
town,  and  the  violent  attacks  on  Thomas  of  Aquin  and  Aristotle, 
to  which  he  gave  vent,  in  the  presence  of  some  of  the  Leipzig 
theologians,  at  a  dinner  in  Emser's  house.  Luther,  as  he  himself 
says,  there  defended  the  proposition,  that  "  neither  Thomas  nor 
all  the  Thomists  put  together  had  understood  a  single  chapter  of 
Aristotle,"  undoubtedly  an  extraordinary  statement,  yet  one 
which,  stripped  of  its  cloak  of  hyperbole,  is  quite  in  Luther's 
style.  Not  a  single  Thomist,  he  said  on  the  same  occasion,  knew 
what  was  meant  by  keeping  God's  Commandments.8  A  young 
Leipzig  Master  in  the  ensuing  Disputation  attacked  him  fiercely 
on  this  score,  and  declared  later  that  he  had  stopped  his  mouth 
so  completely  that  he  was  unable  to  say  a  word.  A  Dominican 
who  was  standing  at  the  door  listening  angrily  to  the  attacks 

1  Luther  to  the  Duke,  May  16,  1519,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  56,  p.  III., 
No.  830  ("  Brief wechsel,"  2,  p.  52).    The  Duke  to  Luther,  May  23,  1519, 
"  Luthers  Briefwechsel,"  2,  p.  59.    Cp.  "  Akten  und  Briefe  zur  Kirchen 
politik  Herzog  Georgs  von  Sachsen,"  ed.  F.  Gess,  Leipzig,  Bd.  1,  1905, 
p.  85. 

2  Luther  to  Spalatin,  January,  14,  1519,  "Briefwechsel/    1,  p.  350. 


DRESDEN   TALES  871 

upon  the  great  Doctor  of  his  Order,  afterwards  admitted  that  he 
had  hardly  been  able  to  restrain  himself  from  rushing  into  the 
room  and  spitting  in  Luther's  face. 

This  is  all  that  the  sources  contain  regarding  Luther's  stay  at 
Dresden.  There  is  no  justification  for  the  proceeding  of  certain 
Protestant  narrators  who  magnify  the  so-called  "  trial  sermon," 
and  utilise  Luther's  sojourn  to  make  him  utter  unique  predictions 
of  the  future.  Other  events  of  those  years  might  with  much 
greater  truth  be  represented  as  momentous,  particularly  the 
Heidelberg  Disputation  from  which  Luther  was  then  returning. 

In  private  conversations  at  Dresden  Luther  showed 
clearly  how  far  he  had  already  separated  himself  from  the 
older  Church.  Emser  made  representations  to  him  on  this 
score  :  "  I  told  you  of  it  plainly  at  Dresden,"  he  writes  in 
the  following  year,  "  and  again  at  Leipzig,  warning  you  in  a 
friendly  manner  and  begging  you  to  place  some  restraint 
upon  your  zeal  and  to  avoid  giving  offence,  and  not  to 
speak  of  the  superstitious  malpractices  amongst  us  Catholics 
in  such  a  way  as  at  the  same  time  to  root  out  all  belief, 
and  to  rob  the  German  people  of  their  faith."1  Elsewhere 
Emser  explains :  "  A  year  before  the  Disputation  at 
Leipzig  [i.e.  in  1518,  and  without  doubt  at  Dresden]  Luther 
declared  that  he  cared  nothing  for  the  Pope's  excommunica- 
tion and  had  already  determined  to  die  under  it.  And  this, 
should  he  deny  it,  I  am  ready  to  prove."2  We  may  take  it 
that  Emser  is  here  alluding  to  Luther's  rude  answers  to  his 
adversaries,  who,  according  to  his  own  story,  reproached 
him  at  Dresden  with  the  sermon  he  had  preached  at  Witten- 
berg on  the  "  Power  of  Indulgences  "  ;  some  portions  of  this 
sermon  had  already  found  their  way  to  Dresden,  though  as 
yet  it  had  not  been  printed.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Emser 
himself  was  among  these  adversaries.  His  statement  about 
what  Luther  said  is  absolutely  trustworthy,  and  shows  how 
untrue  the  fable  was  that  Luther  was  animated  by  the  most 
peaceful  of  intentions  and  only  against  his  will  was  dragged 
into  a  struggle  which  led  eventually  to  his  excommunica- 
tion. 

Luther's  stay  at  Dresden  and  Leipzig  affords  an  oppor- 

1  In  his  pamphlet  against  Luther,  "  A  venations  Luteriana  JEgo- 
cerotis  Assertio,"    end    November,    1519.      Enders,    "Luthers    Brief- 
wechsel,"  1,  p.  225,  n  8.    Cf.  "  An  den  Stier  zu  Wittenberg."    No  place 
or  year  (1520,  or  beginning  1521).     Fol.  Aij,  6. 

2  "  Auff  des  Stiers  tzu  Wittenberg  Wiettende  Replica,"  Leipzig, 
1521,  Aiiij.,  Enders,  ibid. 


372  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

tunity  for  discussing  two  of  his  famous  and  oft-quoted 
utterances,  which,  in  the  sense  they  are  generally  em- 
ployed against  him,  are  historically  doubtful.  Emser,  it  is 
usually  stated,  with  his  own  ears  heard  Luther  declare  that 
he  was  only  waiting  for  an  assurance  of  protection  from 
the  secular  power  in  order  to  declare  war  on  the  Pope,  and 
that  Luther  himself  had  admitted  that  his  cause  had  not 
been  begun  for  God's  sake. 

The  first  utterance,  so  well  revealing  his  low  and  cowardly 
standard,  Luther  is  said  to  have  given  vent  to  at  Dresden  in  1518, 
telling  Emser  that  if  only  a  Prince  would  shield  him,  he  would  do 
his  worst  against  the  Church.  But  is  Emser  here  really  referring 
to  words  spoken  by  Luther  himself  ?  What  he  actually  says  is 
this  :  "  Many  people  know  that  one  of  his  Order  had  often  and 
in  divers  places  been  heard  to  say  that  if  he  [Luther]  only  knew 
of  a  Prince  who  would  have  backed  him,  he  would  give  Pope, 
Bishop  and  Parsons  a  fine  time  of  it."1  In  these  words  we  have 
accordingly  not  an  utterance  of  Luther's  own,  but  merely  one 
of  a  brother  monk.  Neither  is  Dresden  given  as  the  place 
where  this  was  said  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  Augustinian  referred  to 
was  heard  to  say  these  words  in  many  different  places.  What  he 
repeatedly  said  certainly  does  not  redound  to  Luther's  credit, 
neither  does  it  agree  with  the  high-spirited  defence  of  the  truth 
which  is  generally  attributed  to  him  by  Protestants.  Whether 
the  Augustinian  spoke  from  a  thorough  knowledge  of  Luther,  and 
whether  what  he  said  really  renders  words  which  Luther  had 
spoken,  cannot  be  determined.  At  any  rate,  the  manner  in  which 
Luther  acted  in  order  to  gain  and  retain  the  protection  of  the 
Elector,  through  the  intermediary  of  Spalatin,  gives  some  weight 
to  the  words. 

The  other  statement  said  to  have  been  made  by  Luther  was  as 
follows  :  "  Let  the  devil  do  his  utmost,  the  business  was  not  begun 
for  God's  sake  and,  for  His  sake,  shall  not  be  ended."  This 
Emser  says  he  actually  heard  from  Luther  himself  ;2  he  tells 
Luther  :  "  I  warned  you  three  times  in  a  fraternal  spirit  and 
begged  you  for  God's  sake  to  spare  the  poor  people  to  whom  you 
were  certainly  giving  great  scandal  by  this  matter,  and  you  at 
last  answered  me  :  '  Let  the  devil,  etc.'  " 

It  is,  however,  very  doubtful  whether  Luther  would  have  said 
so  plainly  that  his  cause  in  the  controversy  had  not  been  begun,  and 
should  not  cease,  for  God's  sake  (which  is  what  Emser  takes  him  as 
meaning).  In  his  reply  to  Emser  Luther  declares  he  had  meant  some- 
thing quite  different  by  what  he  said  and  we  have  no  right  to  set 
aside  his  explanation.  He  relates  that  the  words  were  said  to  Emser 
in  the  Chancery  of  the  castle  at  Leipzig  on  the  occasion  of  the  Dis- 
putation of  1519,  but  really  of  the  opposite  party  who  wished  to 
do  him  "  harm  "  by  the  proposed  Disputation  ;  Eck,  who  had 

1  Ibid.,  fol.  A,  3'.  2  "  An  den  Stier  zu  Wittenberg,"  fol.  A,  2. 


DRESDEN   TALES  373 

"  begun  the  Disputation,"  Eniser  and  the  Leipzig  theologians 
had  a  mind  to  injure  thereby  his  teaching  ;  "  my  words  applied 
to  them,"  "  not  to  myself,"  those  of  "  ours  who  were  standing 
by  "  are  my  witnesses  j1  besides,  he  writes,  he  would  have  been 
"possessed"  had  he  said:  "I  did  not  begin  this  in  God's 
name  "  ;  but,  because  in  saying  this  he  regretted  "  that  the 
opposite  party  sought  honour  rather  than  the  truth,"  he  said  it 
"  with  sorrowful  words  and  a  sad  mind."  Emser  nevertheless 
stood  to  his  version2  and  declared  that  Luther,  far  from  speaking 
sadly,  had  said  the  words  with  eyes  sparkling  with  anger  ;  besides, 
Luther  had  had  no  right  to  say  anything  of  the  kind  about  Emser 
and  the  Leipzig  theologians,  as  they  had  not  then  set  on  foot  any 
measures  against  him. 

It  is  quite  likely  that  Emser  gave  Luther  the  threefold  warning 
he  speaks  of  above.  But  that  Luther  should  have  replied  to  the 
exhortation  "  to  spare  the  poor  people,"  etc.,  by  the  strange 
statement  that  "  the  matter  had  not  been  begun  for  God's  sake  " 
is  so  utterly  unlikely  that  he  was  probably  right  in  denying  it  in 
his  reply  to  Emser.3  We  may  safely  assume  that  Emser  was  a 
little  confused  in  his  recollection  of  the  interview  ;  in  his  con- 
versation in  the  castle  at  Leipzig  he  may  have  spoken  of  Luther's 
action  generally  and  of  the  Disputation  in  particular,  whereupon 
Luther,  thinking  only  of  the  Disputation,  may  well  have  said  : 
"  Let  the  devil,"  etc. ;  which  Emser,  in  the  excitement  of  the 
dispute,  took  to  refer  to  Luther's  action  as  a  whole. 

At  any  rate,  Luther's  fear  of  giving  scandal,  according  to  his 
own  letters,  was  not  nearly  so  great  as  he  makes  out  in  his  reply 
to  Emser.  Here,  in  the  very  passage  under  discussion,  he  over- 
whelms Emser  with  abuse,  a  fact  which  does  not  awaken  con- 
fidence in  his  statements  :  "  That  man  would  indeed  be  a  monster, 
even  worse  than  Emser  himself,  who  did  not  heartily  grieve  to 
cause  annoyance  to  the  poor  people."  He  calls  his  opponent  a 
"poisonous,  shameless  liar,"  a  "murderer,"  who  spoke  contrary 
to  his  own  "heart  and  conscience."  "My  great  and  joyful  courage 
cuts  you  to  ,the  quick  "  ;  "  Ecks,  Erasers,  Goats,  Wolves  and  Ser- 
pents and  such-like  senseless  and  ferocious  beasts  "  would  have 
raved  even  against  Christ  Himself.  In  the  same  breath  he  declares, 
that  in  his  behaviour  up  to  that  time  "  he  had  never  once  started 
a  quarrel  "  ;  everything  unfavourable  that  had  been  said  of  him 
was  based  merely  on  lies,  which  had  been  invented  about  him 
"  these  three  years  "  and  had  become  a  crying  scandal. 

1  "  Auff  des  Bocks  zu  Leypczick  Antwort,"  1521,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed., 
27,  206  ff. 

2  "  Auff  des  Stiers  tzu  Wittenberg  Wiettende  Replica,"  fol.  A,  3'. 

3  "  Auff  des  Bocks,"  etc.,  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  n.  27,  p.  208  f. 


LUTHER'S  PROGRESS  IN  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

1.  The  Second  Stage  of  his  development.     Assurance 
of  Salvation 

Two  elements  were  still  wanting  to  Luther's  teaching — 
the  very  two  which,  at  a  later  date  and  till  the  end  of  his 
life,  he  regarded  as  the  corner-stone  of  the  truth  which  he 
had  discovered — viz.  Faith  alone  as  the  means  of  justifica- 
tion, and  the  assurance  of  Divine  favour,  which  was  its 
outcome.  Both  these  elements  are  most  closely  connected, 
and  go  to  make  up  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  appropriation 
of  salvation,  or  personal  certainty  of  faith.  In  accordance 
therewith  justifying  faith  includes  not  only  a  belief  in  Christ 
as  the  Saviour ;  I  must  not  merely  believe  that  He  will 
save  and  sanctify  me  if  I  turn  to  Him  with  humility  and 
confidence — this  the  Church  had  ever  taught— but  I  must 
also  have  entire  faith  in  my  justification,  and  rest  assured, 
that  without  any  work  whatsoever  on  my  part  and  solely 
by  means  of  such  a  faith,  all  the  demands  made  upon  me  are 
fulfilled,  the  merits  of  Christ  appropriated,  and  my  remaining 
sins  not  imputed  to  me  ;  such  is  personal  assurance  of 
salvation  by  faith  alone. 

The  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church,  we  may  remind  our 
readers,  never  recognised  in  its  exhortation  to  faith  and 
confidence  in  God,  the  existence  of  this  "  faith  alone  " 
which  justifies  without  further  ado,  nor  did  it  require  that 
of  necessity  there  must  be  a  special  faith  in  one's  state  of 
salvation.  In  place  of  faith  alone  the  Church  taught  what 
the  Council  of  Trent  thus  sums  up :  "  We  are  said  to  be 
justified  by  faith  because  faith  is  the  beginning  of  human 
salvation,  the  foundation  and  root  of  all  justification, 
without  which  it  is  impossible  to  please  God  and  reach  the 
blessed  company  of  His  children."  * 

And  instead  of  setting  up  a  special  faith  in  our  own  state 
1  Sess.  6,  c   8. 
374 


THE  CATHOLIC  DOCTRINE         375 

of  salvation,  her  teaching,  as  expressed  by  the  same  Council, 
had  ever  been  that  "  no  devout  person  may  doubt  the  mercy 
of  God,  the  merit  of  Christ  and  the  power  and  efficacy  of 
the  sacraments,"  though,  on  the  other  hand,  "no  one  may 
boast  with  certainty  of  the  remission  of  his  sins  "  ;  "  nor 
may  it  be  said  that  those  who  are  truly  justified  must 
convince  themselves  beyond  all  doubt  that  they  are  justified 
and  that  no  one  is  absolved  from  sin  and  justified  unless  he 
believe  with  certainty  that  he  has  been  so  absolved  and 
justified,  as  though  absolution  and  justification  were 
accomplished  by  this  faith  alone  "  ;  "  but  rather  everyone, 
bearing  in  mind  his  own  weakness  and  indisposition,  may 
well  be  anxious  and  afraid  for  his  salvation,  as  no  one  can 
know,  with  the  certainty  of  faith  which  excludes  all  error, 
that  he  has  attained  to  the  grace  of  God."  l 

Such  was  the  doctrine  which  Luther  had  learnt  in  his 
early  days  as  a  monk  ;  it  animated  his  youthful  zeal  for  the 
religious  life  and  did  not  interfere  with  his  contented  and 
happy  frame  of  mind,  as  expressed  in  the  letter  of  invitation 
to  his  first  Mass  and  his  conversations  with  Usingen.2  The 
writings  of  St.  Bernard  had  taught  him,  that  in  the  religious 
life  this  happiness  is  the  portion  of  all  those  who  seek  God. 
Luther  knew  that  thousands  like  himself  rejoiced  from  their 
hearts  in  the  "  anointed  cross  "  of  the  service  of  God,  as 
Bernard  calls  it.  On  the  by-path  he  chose  to  follow  he  lost, 
however,  his  happiness  and  increased  his  doubts  and  inward 
unrest. 

Luther,  after  forsaking  the  Catholic  standpoint,  had 
hitherto  been  tormented  by  anxiety  as  to  how  we  can  be 
assured  of  the. Grace  of  God.  Having  left  the  secure  footing 
of  the  Church's  views  on  nature,  grace  and  predestination, 
he  was  now  in  search  of  a  certainty  even  more  absolute. 
His  Commentary  on  Romans  had  concluded  with  the  anxious 
question  :  "  Who  will  give  me  the  assurance  that  I  am 
pleasing  God  by  my  works  ?  "  As  yet  he  can  give  no  other 
answer  than  that,  "we  must 'call  upon  God's  grace  with 
fear  and  trembling  and  seek  to  render  Him  gracious  to  us 
by  humility  and  self-annihilation,  because  all  depends 
upon  His  arbitrary  Will  (above,  p.  217  ff.).  In  these  lectures. 

1  Ibid.,  cap.  ix.,  Contra  inanem  fidwiam. 

2  See    the   letter   above,    p.   15.      On    Usingen,    see   his   Life,   by 
N.  Paulus,  p.  17. 


376  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

in  the  course  of  his  gloomy  and  abstruse  treatment  of  pre- 
destination, he  had  instructed  his  hearers  how  they  must 
be  resigned  to  this  uncertainty  concerning  eternity  (p.  236  ff .). 

In  the  act  of  resignation  he  perceived  various  signs  of  pre- 
destination. He  says  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans  :  "  There 
are  three  degrees  in  the  signs  of  predestination.  Some  are  content 
with  God's  Will,  but  are  confident  they  are  among  the  elect  and 
do  not  wish  to  be  damned.  Others,  who  stand  on  a  higher  level, 
are  resigned  and  contented  with  God's  Will,  or  at  least  wish  to  be 
so,  even  though  God  should  not  choose  to  save  them  but  to  place 
them  amongst  the  lost.  The  third,  i.e.  the  last  and  highest 
degree,  is  to  be  resigned  in  very  deed  to  hell  if  such  be  the  Will  of 
God,  which  is  perhaps  the  case  with  many  at  the  hour  of  death. 
In  this  way  we  become  altogether  purified  from  self-will  and  the 
wisdom  of  the  flesh."1 

"  Terrible  pride  prevails  among  the  hypocrites  and  men  of  the 
law,  who,  because  they  believe  in  Christ,  think  themselves  already 
saved  and  sufficiently  righteous,"  these  claim  to  attain  to  grace 
and  the  Divine  Sonship  "  by  faith  alone"  ("ex  fide  tantum"), 
"  as  though  we  were  saved  by  Christ  without  the  performance  of 
any  works  or  acts  of  our  own  "  ("  sic  ut  ipsi  nihil  operentur,  nihil 
exhibeant  de  fide  ").  Such  men  possess  too  much  faith,  or  rather 
none  at  all.2 

While  he  was  thus  wavering  between  reminiscences  of  the 
Catholic  teaching  and  his  own  pseudo-mystical  ideas  on  justifica- 
tion and  imputation,  his  mind  must  indeed  have  been  in  a  state 
of  incessant  agitation,  so  that  uneasiness  and  fear  became  his 
natural  element.  "As  we  are  unable  to  keep  God's  command- 
ments and  are  therefore  always  unrighteous,  there  remains 
nothing  for  us  but  to  be  in  constant  fear  of  the  Judgment  ('  ut 
indicium  semper  timeamus  '),  and  to  pray  for  pardon,  or  rather 
for  the  non-imputing  of  our  unrighteousness."  "  We  are  to 
rejoice,  according  to  the  Psalmist  (ii.  11),  before  God  on  account 
of  His  Mercy,  but  with  trembling  on  account  of  the  sin  which 
deserves  His  Judgment."3 

In  1525  he  wrote  :  To  leave  man  no  free  will  for  what  is 
good  and  to  make  him  altogether  dependent  on  God's  pre- 
destination "  seems,  it  is  true,  cruel  and  intolerable  ;  countless 
of  the  greatest  minds  of  previous  ages  have  taken  offence  at  this. 
And  who,  indeed,  is  there  whom  the  idea  does  not  offend  ?  I 
myself  have  more  than  once  been  greatly  scandalised  at  it  and 
plunged  into  an  abyss  of  despair  so  that  I  wished  I  had  never 
been  created.  But  then  I  learned  how  wholesome  despair  is  and 
how  close  it  lies  to  grace."4 

This  he  "  learned,"  or  thought  he  learned,  through  his 
doctrine  of  assurance  of  salvation  through  faith. 

1  "  Schol.  Rom.,"  p.  215.  2  Ibid.,  p.  132. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  124.   . 

*  In  De  servo  arbitrio,  "  Werke,"  Weim  ed.,  18,  p.  719. 


FEELING   HIS  WAY  377 

"  The  forgiveness  offered  us  by  God  in  His  Word  "  (if  we 
may  here  anticipate  his  later  teaching),  became  for  him  a 
definite  object  of  sanctifying  and  saving  faith,  to  the  extent 
that  faith  came  to  be  identical  in  his  eyes  with  fiducia. 

Faith  is,  as  he  says,  "  a  real  heartfelt  confidence  in  Christ."1 
"  He  strongly  emphasises  at  the  same  time  the  relation  between 
what  is  here  proposed  for  belief  and  the  individual  believer  ;  I 
believe  that  God  is  gracious  to  me  and  forgives  me.  That,  says 
Luther  [later],  makes  the  Article  of  the  Forgiveness  of  Sins 
particularly  difficult,  for  though  the  other  Articles  of  Faith  may 
be  more  difficult  if  once  we  begin  to  speak  of  them  and  try  to 
understand  them,  yet  in  the  Article  of  the  Forgiveness  of  Sins 
what  presents  the  greatest  difficulty  is,  that  '  each  one  must 
accept  this  for  himself  in  particular.'  This  was  hard  to  a  man 
because  he  must  stand  greatly  in  awe  of  the  anger  of  God  and 
His  Judgment  ;  but  when  the  Article  of  the  Forgiveness  of  Sins 
comes  home  to  us  and  we  really  experience  its  meaning,  then  the 
other  Articles  concerning  God,  the  Creator,  the  Son  of  God,  etc., 
'  also  come  home  to  us  and  enter  into  our  experience.'  And, 
according  to  Luther,  true  faith  consists  in  this,  that  I  believe  and 
am  assured  that  God  is  my  God  because  He  speaks  to  me  and 
forgives  my  sins."2  While  taking  the  acceptance  of  the  whole  of 
revelation  for  granted,  he  magnifies  fiducial  faith  to  such  an 
extent,  that  many  Protestant  theologians  have  come  to  consider 
a  trusting  faith  in  Christ  to  be  his  only  essential  requirement,  in 
fact  to  imagine  that  in  this  alone  faith  consists  ;  claiming  to  be 
merely  following  Luther,  they  deny  that  the  acceptance  of 
individual  points  of  faith,  i.e.  Articles  of  Faith,  can  be  a  necessary 
condition  for  salvation. 

Fiducial  faith,  with  its  assurance  of  salvation  was  the 
way  which  Luther  discovered  out  of  all  his  troubles  about 
two  years  after  the  termination  of  his  Commentary  on 
Romans,  in  1518,  or  the  beginning  of  1519.  This  discovery 
is  a  remarkable  event,  which  stands  alone,  and  with  which 
we  must  concern  ourselves  after  first  examining  what  led  up 
to  it.  From  the  place  where  it  was  made,  viz.  the  tower 
belonging  to  the  monastery,  it  might  be  styled  the  Tower 
Experience. 

The  incident  remained  imbedded  in  Luther's  mind  till 
his  old  age  ;  he  frequently  alludes  to  it,  and  though  in  some 
of  its  details  his  memory  did  not  serve  him  aright  and  his 
apprehension  of  it  may  have  been  somewhat  modified  by 
party  prejudice,  yet  the  main  elements  of  the  story  appear 
to  be  historically  quite  credible.  He  fixes  not  merely  the 

1  Kdstlin,  "  Luthers  Theologie,"  22,  p.  180.  *  Ibid.,  p.  181. 


378  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

place,  but  also  the  time  of  the  incident,  namely,  the  com- 
mencement of  his  second  course  of  lectures  on  the  Psalms 
(1518-19),  i.e.  two  matters  which  ever  serve  as  the  most 
reliable  framework  for  the  picture  of  an  event  long  past. 
From  what  he  relates  between  1532  and  1545,  one  thing  is 
directly  certain  regarding  this  purely  spiritual,  and  for  that 
reason  rather  less  tangible  incident,  viz.  that  it  was  an 
experience  arrived  at  only  after  the  acutest  mental  anguish 
and  which  Luther  ever  after  regarded  as  a  special  illumina- 
tion vouchsafed  to  him  by  God.  It  is  connected  with 
Romans  i.  17  :  "  For  the  justice  of  God  is  revealed  therein 
[in  the  Gospel]  from  faith  unto  faith  as  it  is  written  [Hab. 
ii.  4]  :  '  The  just  man  liveth  by  faith.'  " 

What  is  indirectly  no  less  certain,  from  the  unanimity  of 
the  testimonies,  and  from  the  course  of  his  development  as 
vouched  for  by  his  writings,  is  that  the  discovery  in  question 
was  really  that  of  the  assurance  of  salvation. 

The  various  opinions  which  have  been  expressed  on  the 
account  of  the  event  given  by  Luther  (see  below,  p.  388  ff.)  in 
1545,  and  the  numerous  attempts  which  have  been  made  to 
fix  a  date  for  the  same,  render  it  necessary  to  trace  chrono- 
logically the  development  of  the  doctrine  of  faith  and 
salvation  in  Luther's  mind  till  the  year  1519.  We  shall  see 
that  his  statement  as  to  the  time  when  the  event  took  place 
(1518-19)  not  only  presents  no  difficulty,  but  that  such  a 
termination  to  his  experiences  was  naturally  to  be  expected. 

Prior  to  1518-19  the  absolute  assurance  of  salvation  which 
appears  afterwards  is  nowhere  distinctly  expressed  in  Luther's 
doctrine  on  faith  and  salvation. 

Passages  to  the  contrary,  which  have  been  quoted  from  the 
unprinted  lectures  on  Hebrews  delivered  previous  to  the  autumn 
of  1517,  need  not  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  of  fiducial  faith  and 
assurance  of  salvation.  They  refer  rather  indistinctly  to  the 
effects  of  faith  without  the  works  which  Luther  had  now  come  to 
detest,  and  attack  "  self -righteousness,"  as  in  the  Commentary 
on  Romans  ("sola  fides  .  .  ,  quce  non  nititur  operihus  illis 
[orationibus  et  prceparatoriis  "]).  They  only  hint  vaguely  at  the 
road  he  will  follow  later.1 

Again,  in  the  Indulgence  theses  of  October  31,  1517,  directed 
against  Tetzel,  the  assurance  of  salvation  is  not  expressed,  and 
we  find  a  recommendation  "  to  trust  rather  to  enter  heaven  by 

1  F.  Loofs,  "  Leitf aden  der  Dogmengesch.,"  4,  p.  711,  lays  stress 
on  passages  quoted  by  Denifle,  but  admits  (p.  721)  that  they  are  "  not 
so  clear."  The  same  applies  to  the  passages  quoted  above,  p.  261. 


FEELING   HIS   WAY  379 

much  tribulation  than  by  security  and  peace."  In  place  of  pax, 
pax  !  he,  as  a  mystic,  would  prefer  to  exhort  the  people  with  the 
cry  :  crux,  crux  !  (thesis  93). 

Neither  do  the  theses  of  the  Heidelberg  Disputation  in  April, 
1518,  contain  the  assurance  of  salvation,  although  theses  25-8 
touch  upon  justification  and,  as  against  the  law,  extol  the  great 
effects  of  the  faith  which  Christ  works  in  us.1 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Resolutions  to  the  Indulgence  theses 
which  appeared  shortly  after  (1518)  treat  to  a  certain  extent  of 
the  subject  and  attempt  to  give  a  solution.2  There  we  read  : 
"  In  the  confusion  [in  the  mind  of  the  man  who  is  perturbed  by 
thoughts  of  sin  and  rejection]  God  works  a  strange  work  in  order 
to  accomplish  His  work  "  ;  grace  is  infused  ("  infunditur  gratia"), 
while  man  still  fancies  he  "is  about  to  be  damned."  In  order 
to  rid  himself  of  his  "  despair,"  he  goes  to  Confession  "  so  that  the 
priest  may  declare  him  absolved  and  give  peace  to  his  con- 
science." "  The  man  who  is  to  be  absolved  must  take  great  care 
lest  he  doubt  the  remission  of  his  sins."  Faith  in  Christ's  words 
to  Peter  :  "  Whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,"  etc.,  does  all. 
The  whole  passage,  which  describes  justification  in  the  fanciful  and 
paradoxical  language  of  the  mystic,  is  worth  quoting  :  "  When 
God  begins  to  justify  a  man,  He  first  damns  him  ;  He  is  about  to 
build,  but  first  He  pulls  down,  to  heal  but  first  He  deals  wounds, 
to  vivify  but  first  He  condemns  to  death.  He  crushes  a  man, 
humbles  him  by  the  knowledge  of  himself  and  his  sins  and  makes 
him  tremble,  so  that,  under  a  sense  of  his  misery,  he  cries  out 
[with  Holy  Scripture]  '  there  is  no  peace  for  my  bones  because 
of  my  sins,  there  is  no  health  in  my  flesh  because  of  Thy  wrath. 
For  the  mountains  melt  away  before  the  face  of  God,  He  sends  out 
His  arrows,  He  troubles  us  with  His  anger  and  with  the  breath  of 
His  wrath.  The  sinner  sinks  down  into  hell  and  shame  covers  his 
face.  David  frequently  experienced  this  confusion  and  tribula- 
tion and  describes  it  with  sighs  in  several  of  the  Psalms.  Salva- 
tion has  its  origin  in  this  confusion,  because  '  the  fear  of  God  is 
the  beginning  of  wisdom.'  "  The  ways  of  God  are  in  a  tempest 
and  a  whirlwind,  according  to  Nahum  (i.  3)  ;  man's  destruction 
is  to  Him  "  the  most  pleasing  sacrifice,"  the  animal  sacrificed  is 
torn  in  pieces,  the  hide  is  stripped  off,  and  it  is  slaughtered. 
Luther  in  three  passages  from  the  Prophets,  describes  the  "  in- 
fusion of  grace,"  which  man  is  apt  to  mistake  for  the  outpouring 
of  the  Divine  wrath  upon  him. 

Because  the  man  who  is  justified  is  still  "  without  peace  and 
consolation,"  not  trusting  his  own  judgment,  he  begs  the  priest 
for  comfort  in  Confession.  "  He  is  led  to  cling  to  the  judgment  of 
another  not  because  he  is  a  spiritual  superior,  or  because  he  pos- 
sesses any  power,  but  on  account  of  the  words  of  Christ  Who 
cannot  lie  :  '  Whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose,'  etc.  Faith  in  these 

1  Cp.  K.  Stange,   "  Die  ersten  ethischen  Disputationen   Luthers  " 
("  Quellenschriften  zur  Qesch.  des  Protestantismus,"  No.  1),  p.  54. 

2  "Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  540  f.  ;   "Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  2,  p.  152 
eeg. 


380  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

words  has  worked  peace  of  conscience  while  the  priest  looses  by 
virtue  of  the  same."1  "  Christ  is  our  peace.  Without  faith  in  His 
word,  no  one  will  ever  be  at  peace  even  after  more  than  a  thousand 
absolutions  from  the  Pope.  Thanks  be  to  God  for  this  sweet 
power  of  the  priest." 

Such  words  of  gratitude  do  not  disguise  the  fact,  that  the 
sacrament  of  penance  is  stripped  of  its  meaning  by  the  assur- 
ance, that  "  the  remission  of  guilt  takes  place  by  the  infusion  of 
grace  before  the  priest  has  given  absolution." 

Above  all  it  is  plain  we  have  not  yet  here  that  assurance  of 
salvation,  as  Luther  held  it  at  a  later  date  : 

"  Whoever  seeks  peace  in  another  way  [than  through  the 
absolution  of  the  priest],"  he  says  in  the  same  passage,  "  say,  by 
his  own  inward  experience,  appears  to  be  tempting  God,  and  not 
seeking  peace  by  faith."  With  this  denial  of  the  validity  of 
personal  inward  experience  ("  experientia  intus ")  he  brushes 
aside  an  element  which,  scarcely  a  year  later,  he  represents  as 
essential.  He  says  still  more  definitely  :  "  The  remission  of 
guilt  is  not  assured  to  us,  as  a  general  rule,  except  by  the  sentence 
of  the  priest,  and  not  even  by  him  unless  we  believe  Christ's 
promise  with  regard  to  loosing.  But  so  long  as  we  are  not  certain 
of  the  remission  it  is  no  remission."  "  As  the  infusion  of  grace  is 
hidden  under  the  appearance  of  anger,  man  is  still  more  un- 
certain of  grace  when  it  is  present  than  when  it  is  absent."2 

That  Luther  could  rest  satisfied  with  so  shadowy  and  in- 
sufficient a  conception  can  only  be  attributed  to  his  state  of  mind 
at  the  time. 

He  lays  great  stress  on  absolution  in  the  Disputation  of  the 
year  1518  "  For  the  calming  of  troubled  consciences  "  (above,  p. 
319).3  Here  it  is  expressly  stated,  that  the  strongest  assurance 
regarding  the  state  of  grace  is  to  be  derived  from  the  priest's 
absolution  and  the  accompanying  faith  of  the  penitent  Christian  : 
"  Whoever  is  absolved  by  the  power  of  the  keys  must  rather  die 
and  renounce  all  creatures  than  doubt  of  his  absolution  "  (thesis 
16).  "  Those  who  declare  the  remission  of  sins  to  be  doubtful  on 
account  of  the  uncertainty  of  contrition,  err  to  the  point  of  deny- 
ing the  faith  "  (13),  for  "  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  based  much 
more  upon  faith  in  the  word  of  Christ  :  '  Whatsoever  thou  shalt 
loose,'  etc."  (9).  "  The  power  of  the  keys  operates  a  sure  and 
infallible  work  by  the  word  and  the  command  of  Christ,  when 
used  in  earnest."  (24).  The  concluding  words  of  the  Disputation 
already  quoted  elsewhere  accordingly  exhort  to  boundless  con- 
fidence, while  at  the  same  time  alluding  significantly  to  the  text 

1  Cp.  Weim.  ed.,   1,  p.   542.     "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  p.   156  :    "  Cui 
(sacerdoti  absolventi)  qui  crediderit  cum  fiducia,  vere  obtinuit  pacem  et 
remissionem  apud  Deum  ;  id  est  certus  fit,  se  esse  absolutum,  non  rei  sed 
fidei  certitudine  propter  infallibilem  misericordiam  promittentis  sermonem 
Quodcunque  solveris,"  etc.      "  Sic  Ro.  V.  lustificati  gratis  per  gratiam 
ipaius,  poccm  habemus  ad  Deum  per  fidem,  non  utique  per  rem." 

2  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,'p.  541. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  629  ff.  ;    "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  378  seq. 


FIDUCIAL   FAITH  381 

which  has  risen  on  Luther's  horizon,  though  as  yet  he  understands 
it  only  imperfectly  :    "  The  just  man  liveth  by  faith." 

His  state  of  uncertainty  with  regard  to  the  appropriation 
of  salvation  caused  Luther  great  disquietude.  Other 
circumstances,  particularly  his  feverish  excitement  at  the 
outset  of  his  public  struggle,  also  contributed  towards  his 
inward  unrest.  The  morbid  fear  of  which  he  had  never  rid 
himself  was  also  powerfully  stirred. 

The  supreme  degree  of  this  painful  torment  of  soul  may 
be  gathered  from  the  description  he  gives  in  the  Resolutions. 

In  this  work,  which  appeared  in  August,  1518,  in  dealing 
with  the  15th  Indulgence  thesis,  he  tries  to  prove  that  the 
punishment  of  Purgatory  may  be  made  up  merely  by  fear  and 
terror.  Many  of  those  living  even  now,  he  says,  had  ex- 
perienced how  high  the  flood  of  such  interior  sufferings  can 
rise  and  how  close  they  bring  a  man  to  despair.  He  would 
not  quarrel  with  any  who  did  not  believe  this,  but  those  who 
had  been  through  such  trials  were  in  a  position  to  speak  of 
them.  Tauler  treated  of  such  pains  in  his  German  sermons 
and  brought  forward  some  examples  ;  of  course,  to  the 
Scholastics  Tauler  was  unknown  ;  they  did  not  appreciate 
him,  but  he  had  found  more  real  theology  in  this  theologian 
who  wrote  in  German  than  "  among  the  whole  of  the  Schol- 
astics of  all  the  universities."  He  then  proceeds,  beginning 
with  the  very  formula  with  which  Paul  introduces  the 
account  of  his  raptures  :  "  I  know  a  man  "  (Novi  homlnem), 
to  describe  the  mystical  interior  sufferings  which  he  had 
"  frequently  "  experienced  ;  though  they  had  never  per- 
sisted long,  they  were  so  "  hellish,"  that  whoever  had  not 
undergone  them  himself  was  quite  unable  to  speak  of  them. 
Had  this  consuming  fire  lasted  only  for  the  tenth  part  of  an 
hour  all  a  man's  bones  were  reduced  to  ashes. 

"  God  then  appears  to  be  horribly  angered  and  with  Him 
all  creation.  There  is  no  possibility  of  flight,  no  comfort 
whether  within  or  without,  only  a  hollow  accusing  voice. 
The  soul  laments,  according  to  the  words  of  Scripture  : 
'  Lord  I  am  cast  away  from  Thy  face,'  she  dares  not  even  say  : 
'  Chastise  me  not  in  Thy  wrath.'  At  this  moment- — inex- 
plicable as  it  is — the  soul  is  unable  even  to  believe  in  its 
possible  liberation,  but  only  feels  that  the  punishment  is 
not  at  an  end.  It  appears  everlasting  and  unceasing.  The 
soul  finds  nothing  in  its  whole  being  but  a  bare  longing  for 


382  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

help,  nothing  but  terrible  sighing,  though  it  knows  not 
whence  to  implore  assistance.  Thus  the  soul,  like  Christ, 
is  completely  extenuated,  all  its  bones  are  numbered,  there 
is  not  a  tissue  in  it  which  is  not  penetrated  with  the  ex- 
cruciating bitterness,  with  flight,  with  mournful  anxiety 
and  pain,  and  all  for  ever  and  ever.  When  a  ball  passes 
over  a  board  every  point  of  the  line  along  which  it  travels 
bears  the  whole  weight  of  the  ball,  though  it  does  not 
receive  the  ball  into  itself.  So,  too,  the  eternal  flood  of  pain 
passes  over  the  soul  and  causes  it  to  taste  the  whole  endless 
weight  of  eternal  pain  in  every  part,  but  the  pain  is  not  per- 
manently received  into  the  soul,  it  does  not  last,  but  passes."1 

The  above  so  strange  and  fantastic  description  incor- 
porated in  a  Latin  work  written  for  the  learned,  in  the 
interests  of  Luther's  psychology,  calls  for  further  con- 
sideration. 

Particular  stress  must  here  be  laid  on  the  false  mysticism 
in  which  Luther  was  then  entangled,  and  his  free  use  of  the 
fanciful  language  of  certain  of  the  mystics.  Luther's 
states  had,  however,  nothing  in  common  with  those  de- 
scribed in  somewhat  similar  words  by  the  healthier  mystics, 
viz.  the  sore  trial  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  through  which  the 
soul  passes  owing  to  the  complete  withdrawal  of  consolation. 
He,  however,  imagines  he  sees  himself  portrayed  not  only 
in  such  descriptions  of  the  mystics,  but  also  in  mystical 
passages  in  the  Psalms  over  which,  at  this  time  of  change, 
he  was  fond  of  brooding.  David's  cries  ring  in  his  ears  ;  his 
experience  of  the  hell  in  which  the  soul  must  dwell,  of  the 
life  which  draws  nigh  to  hell,  of  the  bones  which  are  banished 
to  the  gate  of  hell,  of  the  sinking  into  a  dark  sea,  into  the 
bowels  of  the  earth  under  the  heaped-up  weight  of  endless 
misery. 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  1,  p.  557  ;  "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  2,  p.  179  seq. 
No  reason  can  be  advanced  against  the  application  of  this  passage 
to  Luther  himself  except  that  the  formula  he  employs,  Novi  hominem 
(cp.  2  Cor  xii.  2:  " Scio  hominem  in  Christo  .  .  .  raptum"),  he  also 
once  makes  use  of  in  an  account  given  of  another  person.  This  circum- 
stance, howevei,  does  not  invalidate  the  reference  to  his  own  person, 
which  is  apparent  from  the  whole  context.  It  is  true,  however,  that 
Luther  does  not  directly  refer  to  himself.  The  Protestant  historians, 
J.  Kostlin,  W.  Kohler,  W.  Braun,  G.  Kawerau,  etc.,  also  refer  the 
passage  to  Luther  himself.  The  last-named  historian  says,  in  the 
"  Deutsch-Evangelische  Blatter,"  1906,  p.  447,  that  this  passage  of 
the  Resolutions  gives  an  idea  "of  the  night  of  the  soul  which  he  had 
experienced." 


FIDUCIAL   FAITH  383 

It  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Monk,  with  his 
pseudo-mystical  ideas,  cherished  a  gloomy  conception  of 
God,  and  held  the  terrible  doctrine  of  the  absolute  pre- 
destination of  the  damned.  Having  wandered  away  from 
the  Catholic  teaching,  with  his  views  on  man's  lack  of  free 
will,  and  the  theory  of  arbitrary  imputation  by  God,  he 
found  no  answer  in  his  troubled  conscience  to  the  question 
which  weighed  him  down,  namely,  how  to  arrive  at  the 
assurance  of  a  Gracious  God.  Confusion  and  interior  pangs 
of  conscience  for  a  while  gained  the  upper  hand. 

Lastly,  his  peculiar  morbid  tendency  to  fear  must  also  be 
taken  into  account,  for  it  afforded  an  opportunity  to  the 
Tempter  to  add  to  his  confusion  by  raising  difficulties 
regarding  the  deficiencies  of  his  new,  self-chosen  theology. 

Adolph  Hausrath  in  his  Life  of  Luther  even  speaks  of 
periodical  mental  disturbances  from  which  he  suffered  during 
the  time  he  was  a  monk  ;  the  disturbing  power  inherent  in 
the  monastic  practices,  so  he  says,  took  possession  of  his 
sensitive  nature  with  its  strong  feelings ;  Luther  only 
escaped  the  danger  of  going  mad  by  bravely  bursting  the 
fetters  of  the  monastic  Rule  and  the  Popish  Faith.  In  the 
strong  inward  combats  which  Luther  endured  at  a  later 
date  Hausrath  recognises  a  return  of  this  affliction.  In  his 
second  edition  he  has  toned  down  this  view  of  Luther's 
periodical  attacks  of  mental  illness  out  of  regard  for  the 
objections  which  had,  not  without  reason,  been  urged 
against  his  statement.  In  Luther's  case,  however,  there  is 
no  reason  for  assuming  any  "  monkish  mental  disease,"  nor 
can  he  be  proved  to  have  suffered  from  any  disturbance 
whatever  of  his  mental  functions  at  any  time  of  his  life.1 
But  if  we  take  it  that  the  night  of  the  soul  which  he  passed 
through,  whether  in  the  monastery  or  during  his  later 
struggle,  had  at  its  basis  a  peculiar  physico-psychic  dis- 
position revealing  a  want  of  normal  inward  stability,  then 
we  can  perhaps  easily  explain  some  other  strange  and  at 
first  blush  inexplicable  phenomena  which  his  case  presents. 

At  any  rate,  the  fundamental  new  dogma  of  the  assurance 
of  salvation  was  not  the  product  of  a  clear,  quiet,  calm 
atmosphere  of  soul.  It  was  born  amidst  unbearable  inward 
mental  confusion,  and  was  a  frantic  attempt  at  self-pacifica- 

1  See  volume  vi.,  chapter  xxxvi.,  "Dark  side  of  the  Life  of  the 
Soul,"  4,  5. 


384  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

tion  on  the  part  of  the  Wittenberg  Doctor  whose  active  but 
unstable  mind  had  already  left  the  true  course. 

It  is  of  interest  and  helps  us  to  reach  a  right  understanding 
of  the  Tower  Experience,  to  follow  the  change  of  view  re- 
garding assurance  of  salvation  which  is  apparent  in  Luther's 
statements  and  writings  in  the  latter  months  of  1518  and 
beginning  of  1519. 

At  the  time  when,  in  October,  1518,  Luther,  a  prey  to 
other  anxieties,  stood  before  Cardinal  Cajetan  at  Augsburg, 
he  was  already  making  great  strides  towards  the  new  and 
consoling  dogma  of  faith  alone,  moved  thereto  by  indigna- 
tion at  the  censure  which  one  of  his  propositions  had  called 
forth.  He  says  to  Cardinal  Cajetan  in  his  explanation  of  the 
second  of  the  assertions  which  he  was  required  to  withdraw, 
that  it  was  incorrect  to  speak  of  it  as  "  a  new  and  false 
theology  that  no  one  can  be  justified  except  by  faith,  and 
that  it  is  necessary  to  hold  it  as  certain  in  faith  that  one  is 
justified,  and  not  in  any  way  to  doubt  the  obtaining  of 
grace,  because  whoever  doubts  or  is  uncertain  is  no  longer 
justified,  but  is  rejecting  grace."  l 

He  attempts  to  prove  this  first  as  regards  Confession.  The 
principal  thing  is  to  believe  the  words  of  Christ  :  "  Whatsoever 
thou  shalt  loose,"  etc.,  i.e.  by  applying  the  words  to  oneself  ; 
"  under  pain  of  eternal  damnation  and  to  avoid  committing  a  sin 
of  unbelief,"  it  is  necessary  to  believe  this  ;  this  faith  is  the  only 
disposition  for  the  sacrament  and  no  work  whatever  serves  as  a 
preparation.2  No  one  could  receive  grace  who  doubted  of  its 
reception  ;  but,  if  we  believed,  then  we  received  everything  in 
the  sacrament.  The  belief  that  we  receive  a  personal  remission  of 
sin  is,  according  to  St.  Bernard,  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  our  heart ;  this,  according  to  the  same  Father,  is  expressed  in 
Romans  iii.  28  :  "  We  hold  that  a  man  is  justified  by  Faith  with- 
out the  works  of  the  law."  Let  Cardinal  Cajetan,  he  says  finally 
— after  quoting  a  great  number  of  biblical  passages  having  no 
bearing  on  the  matter  in  hand — show  him  how  he  is  to  under- 
stand in  any  other  way  all  these  texts  from  the  Divine  utter- 
ances. 

What  is  remarkable  is,  however,  that,  during  his  trial  at 
Augsburg,  he  allows  Confession  and  Absolution  to  recede  further 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  13  f.     "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  2,  p.  377  seq. 

2  "  Per  nulla  opera  aptus  (en's)  ad  sacramenlum,  sed  per  solam  fidem, 
quia  sola  fides  verbi  Christi  iustificat,  virificat,  dignificat,  prceparat ;  sine 
qua  omnia  alia  vel  sunt  prcesumptionis  rel  desperationis  studia.     lustus 
enim  non  ex  dispositione  sua  sed  ex  fide  vivit,  Rom.  i.  17,"  which  passage 
(see  below,  p.  391  ft.)  accordingly  already  plays   a   great  part  in  his 
considerations. 


FIDUCIAL   FAITH  385 

into  the  background  than  in  the  Resolutions  ;  he  no  longer  speaks 
of  the  above-mentioned  magical  production  of  the  personal 
assurance  of  salvation,  by  the  formula  of  absolution,  as  by  the 
testimony  of  another  ;  he  now  holds  the  absolute  certainty  of 
justification  to  be  present  by  faith  even  before  this,  whenever 
a  man  is  willing  to  submit  himself,  according  to  his  instructions, 
to  the  Sacrament  of  Penance.1  Thus  faith  alone  and  the  assur- 
ance of  salvation  were  already  present.  The  principal  difficulty, 
however,  as  he  admits  below  (p.  389  f.),  still  troubled  his  mind.  This 
was  the  Justice  of  God,  which  haunted  his  conscience,  though  it 
did  not  hinder  his  going  forward. 

The  appeal  he  made  to  a  General  Council  in  November 
and  his  "  conjecture  "  of  December,  1518,  that  the  Pope 
might  be  Antichrist,2  were  momentous  indications  that  he 
was  cutting  himself  adrift  from  the  authority  of  the  Church. 
At  the  same  time  he  stripped  the  ideas  he  had  hitherto  held 
on  faith  of  everything  that  reminded  him  of  the  traditional 
teaching  of  the  Church  ;  he  transformed  the  faith  necessary 
for  justification  into  a  mere  act  of  confidence  in  the  merits  of 
Christ  without  any  reference  to  the  Sacraments,  to  the  other 
truths  of  faith,  or  to  the  Church,  who  is  the  guardian  and 
mouthpiece  of  faith.  To  lay  hold  upon  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  with  a  sure  trust  is  made  to  suffice  for  justification 
and  for  the  fullest  assurance  of  salvation,  without  any  of  the 
preliminaries  and  conditions  on  which  he  had  formerly 
insisted.  This  act,  too,  God  alone  operates  in  man,  who 
himself  is  devoid  of  all  free  will.  Although  he  incidentally 
clothes  the  act  of  confidence  with  love,  and  even  hints  at 
the  good  works  a  man  may  have  performed  previous  to  this 
act,  also  requiring  good  resolutions  for  the  future,  yet  these 
are  only  additions  which  are  really  inconsistent  with  his 
idea.  Henceforward  fiducial  faith  appears  to  him  as  really 
an  isolated  fact,  an  act  of  confidence  inspired  by  God  merely 
from  His  good  pleasure  and  with  no  regard  for  any  work. 

1  In  the  beginning  of  1519  he  gives  instructions   to  the  Faithful, 
intended  to  show  them  how  to  make  a  good  use  of  Confession  ("A 
Short   Instruction   how   to   make   a   Confession,"    "  Werke,"    Weim. 
ed.,  2,  p.  57  ff ;    Erl.  ed.,  21,  p.  244  ff.).     Even  in  March,  1520,  he  re- 
published  this  little  work  in  an  extended  form,   "Confitendi  Ratio," 
Weim.  ed.,  6,  p.  154  seq.    "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  4,  p.  152  aeq.  (cp.  Kostlin- 
Kawerau,  1,  p.  278),  where  he  recommends  confession,  merely  warning 
the  penitent,  ' '  ut  non  fiducia  confessionis  vel  faciendce  vel  factce  nitatur 
sed  in  solius  Dei  clementissimam  promissionem  tola  fidei  plenitudine  con- 
fidat,   certissimus  videlicet,   quod,   qui  confessuro  peccata  sua  promisiH 
veniam,  promissionem  suam  fidelissime  prcestabit." 

2  To   Wenceslaus   Link,   December   11,    1518,    "  Briefwechsel,"    1, 
p.  316. 

I.— 2  Q 


386  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

A  vast  change  of  far-reaching  consequence  had  taken  place 
in  Luther's  conception  of  the  appropriation  of  the  iustitia  Dei, 
he  had  now  reached  an  interpretation  of  the  words  iustus  ex 
fide  vivit  and  of  the  whole  meaning  of  the  gospel,  upon 
which,  notwithstanding  the  independence  of  his  treatment 
of  doctrine,  he  had  never  hitherto  ventured. 

We  may  well  ask  what  event,  what  development,  had  led 
up  to  this. 

Salvation  by  faith  alone  and  the  absolute  assurance  of 
one's  state  of  grace,  were  taught  by  Luther  quite  openly  in 
)he  second  course  of  lectures  on  the  Psalms,  which  he  had 
commenced  in  1518  (perhaps  at  the  end  of  the  year),  and  the 
beginning  of  which  he  published  in  1519  with  a  preface 
addressed  to  the  Elector  Frederick,  dated  March  27,  1519 
(see  above,  p.  285).  This  was  the  "  Operationes  in  Psalmos," 
upon  the  publication  of  which  he  was  engaged  until  1521,  and 
which  was  finally  left  unfinished. 

This  work  he,  even  at  a  later  date,  described  as  an  entirely 
true  exposition  of  his  actual  teaching  on  justification.1 

Other  lectures,  delivered  at  an  earlier  period,  received 
no  such  praise  from  him  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  never  took 
the  trouble  of  having  them  printed,  and  does  not  even 
mention  them.  Although  the  Commentary  on  Romans, 
which  we  have  already  studied,  had  advanced  a  considerable 
distance  along  the  new  lines  of  thought,  nevertheless,  at  a 
later  date  its  tone  appeared  too  Catholic  to  please  him  ;  it 
did  not  contain  the  new  creed  "  Credo  me  esse  salvum" 
The  same  is  true  of  the  earlier  course  on  the  Psalms,  of  the 
lectures  on  Galatians,  on  Hebrews  and  on  the  Epistle  to 
Titus.  Luther,  as  a  rule,  was  very  ready  to  have  his  writings 
printed,  but  these,  after  he  had  entered  upon  the  second 
stage  of  his  development,  he  plainly  looked  upon  as  unripe 
and  incomplete. 

Simultaneously  with  the  printing  of  the  new  Commentary 
on  the  Psalms  he  commenced  that  of  another  Commentary, 
also  consisting  of  lectures.  This  is  the  shorter  of  the  two 
works  on  Galatians  which  he  has  left  us  in  print  (above, 
p.  306  f.).  This  Commentary  on  Galatians,  together  with  the 
"  Operationes  in  Psalmos,"  is  the  earliest  witness  to  his  new 
and  definitive  conception  of  sola  fides  as  an  entire  confidence 
in  one's  justification. 

1  Mathesius,  "  Aufzeichnungen,"  p.  75. 


FIDUCIAL   FAITH  387 

To  these  must  be  added  the  almost  contemporary  "  Sermo 
de  triplici  iustitia"  delivered  towards  the  end  of  1518,  and 
the  "  Sermo  de  duplici  iustitia,"  dating  from  the  commence- 
ment of  1519. 

The  righteousness  of  Christ,  he  says  in  the  sermon  on  the 
threefold  righteousness1 — without  any  reference  to  the  Sacra- 
ments, with  the  exception  of  Baptism,  or  to  the  Church's  means 
of  grace — "  is  our  whole  being  "  and  "  becomes  by  faith  our 
righteousness,  according  to  Romans  i.  :  '  The  just  man  liveth  by 
faith  '  "  ;  "  Whoever  has  this  shall  not  be  damned,  even  though 
he  commit  sin,"2  this  being  proved  by  two  passages  from  the 
Psalms  ;  "by  this  man  becomes  lord  of  all  things."  There  is  no 
such  thing  as  merit.  "  Every  Christian  must  beware  of  ever 
doubting  as  to  whether  his  works  are  pleasing  to  God  ;  whoever 
doubts  this,  sins,  loses  all  his  works  and  labours  in  vain.  .  .  .  He 
is  not  acting  from  faith  or  in  faith."  "  As  you  believe  in  Christ  so 
too  you  must  believe  that  your  works  are  well  pleasing  to  God 
because  they  are  of  faith  [i.e.  done  in  a  state  of  grace]." 

In  the  sermon  on  the  twofold  righteousness  one  of  the  first 
quotations  from  the  Bible  on  which  the  same  idea  is  based  and 
yet  more  strongly  expressed  is  again  Romans  i.  17  :  "  The 
justice  of  God  is  revealed  in  the  gospel,"  etc.3  This  passage 
assumes  a  more  prominent  position  in  his  mind.  He  pauses  in 
his  explanation  of  Psalm  xxx.  1  :  "  In  iustitia  tua  libera  me  "  ; 
this,  he  says,  signifies  "  the  righteousness  of  Christ  which  has 
become  ours  by  faith,  grace  and  the  mercy  of  God."  He  finds 
that  this  righteousness  is  frequently  referred  to  in  the  Psalms  as 
the  "  work  of  God,  confession,  power  of  God,  mercy,  truth  and 
justice.  These  are  all  names  for  faith  in  Christ,  or  rather  names 
for  that  righteousness  which  is  in  Christ."  It  is  true  that  "  this 
alien  righteousness  which  is  only  infused  by  grace  is  never  com- 
pletely infused  all  at  once,  but  begins,  increases  and  is  finally 
completed  by  death."  It  is  displayed  by  works  of  faith,  especially 
those  for  the  good  of  others,  where  man,  "  the  lord  of  all  things," 
makes  himself  "  the  servant  of  all " — words  which  Luther 
employs  in  exactly  the  same  sense  shortly  afterwards  as  the 
foundation  of  his  work  :  "  On  the  freedom  of  a  Christian  man." 
Faith,  i.e.  confidence  in  our  own  salvation  by  Christ,  works  all  this  ; 
it  imparts  a  certainty  so  that  we  are  able  to  say  :  "  Christ's  life, 
work,  sufferings  and  death  are  mine,  just  as  though  I  had  myself 
lived,  worked,  suffered  and  died  ;  so  great  is  the  confidence  with 
which  you  are  able  to  glory  in  Christ."4 

His  teaching,  even  then,  was  against  the  law.  According  to 
him,  says  Loofs,  "  the  law,  even  as  '  explained  '  in  the  New 
Testament,  which  renders  assurance  of  salvation  possible  only 
after  the  fulfilment  of  demands  impossible  to  the  natural  man, 

1  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  44  f.     "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  2,  p.  325  seq. 

2  "  Hanc  qui  habet,  etiamsi  peccet,  non  damnatur." 

3  "  Werke,"  Weim.  ed.,  2,  p.  146.    "  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  2,  p.  330. 
«  Ibid.,  p.  145  [329]. 


388  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

is,  it  is  true,  necessary  as  a  negative  preparation  for  faith,  though 
not  to  be  regarded  as  the  expression  of  the  relationship  desired 
by  God  between  Himself  and  man.  It  is  the  gospel  which  teaches 
us  the  position  which  God  wishes  us  to  occupy  with  regard  to 
Himself  ;  according  to  its  teaching  we  must,  before  we  do  any- 
thing for  our  salvation,  be  certain  by  faith  of  God's  forgiving 
grace,  in  order  to  be  born  again  by  such  a  faith  and  become 
capable  of  fulfilling  the  Will  of  God."1  The  Protestant  theologian 
who  writes  thus  in  his  History  of  Dogma  also  points  out  that 
according  to  Luther,  the  law  was  merely  revealed  by  God  as  an 
educational  measure  and  as  the  foundation  of  a  scale  of  rewards, 
whereas  the  gospel  represents  the  justice  of  God  in  the  order  of 
grace  (Rom.  i.  17).  "  In  this  conception  of  the  antagonism 
between  the  law  and  the  gospel,"  says  Loofs,  "  and  in  the 
possibility  and  necessity  of  an  assurance  of  salvation  which  it 
presupposes  lies  the  fundamental  difference  between  the  Lutheran 
and  the  Catholic  view  of  Christianity."2 

At  these  fundamental  views  regarding  the  appropriation 
of  salvation,  or  righteousness  by  faith,  Luther  had  accord- 
ingly already  arrived  in  1518-19  when  engaged  on  his  second 
exposition  of  the  Psalms. 

2.  The  Discovery  in  the  Monastery  Tower  (1518-19) 

Luther  describes,  in  an  important  passage  of  the  Preface  to 
the  Latin  edition  of  his  works  in  1545,  how  he  finally  arrived 
at  his  ideas  of  faith  and  the  assurance  of  salvation.3  It  is 
the  only  occasion  on  which  he  expatiates  in  so  detailed  and 
vivid  a  manner  on  his  own  development.  In  the  light  of  this 
passage  his  other  assertions  must  be  considered. 

The  reader  is  at  once  struck  by  what  Luther  relates  of 
the  gloom  and  confusion  of  his  mind  previous  to  the  discovery 
in  the  tower.  In  the  preface,  he  says  :  "  The  passage, 
Romans  i., '  The  Justice  of  God  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel,'  had, 
till  then,  been  an  obstacle  to  me.  For  I  hated  the  words 

1  F.  Loofs,  "  Leitfaden  zum  Studium  der  Dogmengesch."4,  p.  721  f. 

2  P.  722.     We  may  mention  casually  Loofs's  well-founded  criticism 
of    Luther's    doctrine    of    Justification    and    Assurance    of    Salvation 
(p.  767  f.).    Further  attention  will  be  given  to  this  point  of  his  teaching 
and  to  that  on  the  Law  and  the  Gospel  in  volume  iv.,  xxviii.,  3,  and 
volume  vi.,  xxxix.,  2  and  4. 

"  Opp.  Lat.  var.,"  1,  p.  22  seq.  This  passage  will  be  compared 
with  a  similar  lengthy  statement  in  the  Commentary  on  Genesis  ("  Opp. 
Lat.  exeg.,"  7,  p.  74,  cp.  10,  p.  155),  which,  however,  is  not  of  equal 
importance  with  the  former  because  the  Commentary  consists  merely 
of  notes  made  by  others  from  Luther's  lectures,  and  the  portion  in 
question  was  not  published  till  after  Luther's  death.  Cp.  on  the  latter, 
O.  Scheel,  "Die  Entwicklung  Luthers,"  etc.  ("  Schriften  des  Vereins 
fur  Reformationsgesch.,"  No.  100,  pp.  61-230),  p.  107  f. 


THE   JUSTICE   OF   GOD  389 

'  justice  of  God,'  which  according  to  the  use  and  custom 
of  all  teachers  I  had  been  taught  to  interpret  in  the  philo- 
sophical sense,  namely,  as  referring  to  the  formal  and  active 
justice  by  which  God  is  just  and  punishes  the  sinners  and  the 
unjust.  Although  I  was  a  blameless  monk,  I  felt  myself  as  a 
sinner  before  God,  suffered  great  trouble  of  conscience  and 
was  unable  to  look  with  confidence  on  God  as  propitiated  by 
my  satisfaction,  therefore  I  did  not  love,  but  on  the  contrary, 
hated,  the  just  God  Who  punishes  sinners  ;  I  was  angry 
with  Him  with  furious  murmuring,  and  said  :  The  unhappy 
sinners  and  those  who  owing  to  original  sin  are  for  all 
eternity  rejected  are  already  sufficiently  oppressed  by  every 
kind  of  misfortune  owing  to  the  Ten  Commandments,  and  as 
though  this  were  not  enough  God  wills  [according  to  Rom.  i.] 
by  means  of  the  gospel  to  heap  pain  on  pain,  and  threatens 
us  with  His  Justice  and  His  Anger  even  in  the  gospel."1 

In  his  Table-Talk,  as  reported  by  Heydenreich,  he  says  in 
the  winter  of  1542-43  in  a  quite  similar  way  :  "  These  words 
were  always  in  my  mind.  Wherever  the  '  Justice  of  God  ' 
occurs  in  Scripture  I  was  only  able  to  understand  this  to 
mean  the  justice  by  which  He  Himself  is  just  and  judges 
according  to  justice.  ...  I  stood  there  and  knocked  for 
someone  to  open  to  me,  but  no  one  came  to  undo  the  door  ; 
I  did  not  know  what  to  make  of  it.  ...  Before  finding  the 
solution  I  shuddered  with  horror,  I  hated  the  Psalms  and  the 
Scripture  where  the  justice  of  God  occurs,  which  I  took  to 
mean  that  He  was  just  and  the  Judge  of  sinners,  but  not  that 
He  was  our  Justification  and  our  imputed  righteousness." 
"  The  whole  of  Scripture  stood  like  a  wall  in  front  of  me."2 

"  As  often  as  I  read  that  the  Justice  of  God  was  revealed 
in  the  Gospel,"  he  says  in  his  Commentary  on  Genesis,  "  I 
wished  that  God  had  never  revealed  the  Gospel,  for  who 
could  love  an  angry  God  Who  judges  and  condemns  ?  "3 

"  This  word  Justice,"  he  says  in  another  Commentary  in  1532, 
"cost  me  much  sweat  ('  magno  sudore  mihi  constitit').  To 
interpret  this  as  though  it  meant  the  justice  according  to  which 
God  damns  the  wicked  is  not  merely  unfounded  but  very  danger- 
ous ;  it  awakens  in  the  heart  great  hatred  of  God  and  His  Justice  ; 
for  who  can  love  Him  Who  treats  the  sinner  according  to  justice  ? 

1  The  rest  of  the  passage  is  given  below,  p.  391.     The  contents  will 
first  be  made  clear  by  quotations  from  parallel  statements  of  Luther's. 

2  Mathesius,  "  Table-Talk,"  p.  309. 
8  "  Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  7,  p.  74. 


390  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

Never  forget  that  God's  justice  means  that  justice  by  which  we 
are  justified  ;  it  is  the  gift  of  the  remission  of  sins."1 

That  in  truth  it  "  cost  him  much  sweat  "  before  he  was  able  to 
overcome  the  objections  suggested  by  the  justice  of  God  itself, 
is  proved  by  other  and  stronger  allusions  of  Luther  to  the 
interior  storms  he  underwent  at  this  crisis.  We  refer  to  other 
statements  in  which,  as  above,  he  is  speaking  of  Bible  passages 
containing  the  expression  Justice  of  God.  Thus  for  instance  : 
"  The  words  just  and  Justice  of  God  were  like  a  lightning-flash 
in  my  conscience  ('  fulmen  in  conscientia  ')  ;  when  I  heard  them, 
they  at  once  filled  me  with  terror.  I  thought  God  is  Just  and 
therefore  He  punishes."2  "That  word  iustitia,"  he  said  in 
September,  1538,  "  was  a  thunder-clap  to  my  heart.  When  as  a 
papist  I  read  :  '  Deliver  me  in  Thy  Justice  '  (Ps.  xxx.  2),  and 
'  In  Thy  Truth,'  etc.,  I  immediately  represented  to  myself  the 
avenging  Justice  and  the  fury  of  an  angry  God.  In  my  heart  I 
hated  Paul  when  I  read  :  '  The  Justice  of  God  is  revealed  in  the 
Gospel '  .  .  .  till  at  last  in  my  affliction  a  remedy  presented 
itself."3 

Here  we  may  mention  some  statements,  which,  though  they 
belong  to  his  later,  fictitious  portrayal  of  his  spiritual  develop- 
ment,1 nevertheless  contain  an  element  of  truth  concerning  his 
inner  life  at  the  time  when  he  was  still  a  monk,  and  probably 
during  those  very  months  when  he  was  excitedly  and  confusedly 
brooding  over  the  assurance  of  salvation.  In  reality  they  merely 
describe  in  greater  detail  what  the  above  passages  relate  of  his 
dread  of  God's  Justice,  though  they  also  falsely  charge  all  papists 
and  all  monks  with  being  full  of  servile  fear  for  the  Judge,  and 
forming  a  school  of  despair. 

"  We  fled  from  Christ,"  he  says  in  one  of  these  remarkable 
passages,  "  as  from  the  devil  ;  for  we  were  taught  that  everyone 
must  appear  before  the  Judgment-seat  of  Christ  with  his  works 
and  orders.  .  .  .  The  Gospel  tells  us  that  Christ  does  not  come 
as  a  Judge  but  as  a  Saviour  ;  but  the  monks  taught  the  contrary, 
namely,  that  He  was  to  be  our  Judge."5  Now,  he  says,  elsewhere, 
the  word  of  God  which  has  been  re-discovered  "  depicts  Christ  as 
our  Justice."  But  in  the  monastery  he,  like  all  the  others,  had 
"  fallen  away  from  the  faith,"  and  therefore  his  "  heart  trembled 
and  palpitated  for  fear  lest  God  should  not  be  gracious  "  to  him. 
"  I  often  shuddered  at  the  name  of  Jesus  and  when  I  looked  at 
Him  on  the  cross,  He  seemed  to  me  like  a  lightning-flash."6 

He  had  often,  he  assures  us,  been  forced  to  say  :  "  I  wish 
there  were  no  God,"7  "  and  none  of  them  looked  upon  my  un- 
belief as  a  sin."8 

It  was  "  simple  idolatry,  for  I  did  not  believe  in  Christ  but 

1  "Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  19,  p.  130.    Exposition  of  Psalm  li. 

2  From  Khummer's  Notes  in  Seidemann's  edition  of  Lauterbach's 
"Tagebuch,"  p.  81. 

3  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  130.       4  See  volume  vi.,  xxxvii. 

6  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  47,  p.  39  f.  8  Ibid.,  45,  p.  156. 

7  Ibid.,  46,  p.  73.  8  "  Opp.  Lat.  exeg.,"  7,  p.  74. 


THE   STERN  JUDGE  391 

looked  on  Him  as  a  stern  and  terrible  Judge."1  "I  did  not  know 
how  I  stood  towards  God,"  "  was  unable  to  pray  aright,"2  indeed 
"  no  one  knew  anything  "  about  prayer,  "  for  we  did  not  pray  in 
faith  in  Christ."3 

It  was  a  "  great  martyrdom  and  bondage  from  which  the 
gospel  set  us  free  "  ;4  I  was,  as  it  were,  in  a  privy  and  in  the 
kingdom  of  the  devil. 5  He  felt  the  terrors  of  the  Divine  Judgment, 
he  assures  us  (possibly  on  account  of  the  inward  wrestling  with 
the  iustitia  Dei)  so  that  his  "  hair  stood  on  end  "  when  he  thought 
of  it.  "  At  the  monastery  I  shuddered  when  they  spoke  of  death 
or  the  other  life."6 

"  I  was  the  most  wretched  man  on  earth  ;  day  and  night  there 
was  nothing  but  howling  and  despair  which  no  one  was  able  to  put 
an  end  to  for  me.  Thus  I  was  bathed  and  baptised  and  properly 
sweated  in  my  monkery.  Thanks  be  to  God  that  I  did  not  sweat 
myself  to  death,  otherwise  I  should  have  long  ago  been  in  the 
depths  of  hell  with  my  monkish  baptism.  For  I  knew  Christ  only 
as  a  stern  Judge  from  Whom  I  wished  to  escape  and  was  unable 
to  do  so.  ...  Thus  have  they  tortured  many  a  worthy  soul 
throughout  life  and  at  last  thrown  him  in  despair  into  the  infernal 
abyss."7 

"  In  this  way  I  raged  ('  Itafurebam  '),"  Luther  continues 
in  the  Latin  Preface  where  he  speaks  of  his  sudden  discovery, 
"  and  my  conscience  caused  me  terror  and  confusion  ;  I 
knocked  imploringly  at  the  verse  of  Paul  (Rom.  i.  17)  with 
a  burning  thirst  to  know  what  it  meant."  He  now  describes 
the  actual  inward  experience. 

"  At  last,  while  brooding  day  and  night,  by  the  mercy  of  God 
I  noticed  the  connection  between  the  words  :  the  Justice  of  God 
is  revealed  therein  [in  the  gospel],  as  it  is  written,  'The  just 
man  liveth  by  faith.'  Then  I  began  to  understand  the  Justice 
of  God  as  that  by  which  the  just  man  lives  by  the  gift  of  God, 
viz.  by  faith  ;  [I  saw  that]  the  sense  is  this  :  '  By  the  gospel, 
justice,  i.e.  the  passive  justice  of  God,  is  revealed  by  which  the 
merciful  God  justifies  by  faith,  as  it  is  written  :  '  The  just  man 
liveth  by  faith.'  Then  I  felt  myself  born  again  and  fancied  I  had 
passed  through  the  gates  of  Paradise.  The  whole  of  Scripture 
thereupon  appeared  to  me  in  quite  a  different  light.  I  ran  rapidly 
through  the  passages  in  question  as  they  lived  in  my  memory 
and  compared  them  with  other  expressions,  such  as  :  '  Work  of 
God,'  i.e.  the  work  which  God  carries  on  in  us  ;  '  Power  of  God,' 
by  which  He  makes  us  strong  ;  '  Wisdom  of  God,'  by  which  He 
makes  us  wise  ;  likewise  the  '  Strength  of  God,'  '  Salvation  of 
God,'  and  '  Honour  of  God.'  Then  I  extolled  that  sweetest  word, 
Justice,  with  as  much  love  as  I  had  previously  hated  it,  and  this 

i  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  49,  p.  27.  2  Ibid.,  17,  p.  139  f. 

3  Ibid.,  44,  p.  354.  *  Ibid.,  59,  p.  10. 

6  In  Galat.,  1,  p.  109.  •-  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  51,  p.  146, 

7  Ibid.,  31,  p.  279. 


392  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

passage  of  Paul's  became  to  me  in  very  truth  the  gate  of 
Paradise."  He  adds  that  the  reading  of  Augustine  had  strength- 
ened him  in  his  interpretation,  and,  "  provided  with  better 
weapons  by  means  of  this  experience,  I  set  about  the  exposition 
of  the  Psalms  for  the  second  time  "  ;  this  work  was,  however, 
interrupted  by  the  Diet  of  Worms. 

Luther,  it  is  true,  does  not  speak  here  of  the  monastery 
tower  as  the  scene  of  his  experience,  but  this  is  described 
quite  plainly  in  his  other  statements  given  below.  "In  these 
the  privy  situated  above  the  "  Hypocaustum  "  is  mentioned 
as  the  place  where  the  discovery  took  place.  They  at  the 
same  time  complete  and  confirm  the  account  given  in  the 
Preface  of  the  antecedents  of  this  new  enlightenment,  i.e. 
the  immediately  preceding  terrors  of  God's  avenging 
justice,  the  time  it  happened,  viz.  when  Luther  was  engaged 
on  the  Psalms,  and  finally,  the  subject-matter  of  the 
experience. 

The  accounts  from  Luther's  own  lips  must  here  be  con- 
sidered collectively. 

Not  only  do  they  correspond  exactly  with  Luther's 
condition  of  mind,  as  described  above,  but  also,  according  to 
the  chronological  account  already  given  of  the  development 
of  his  teaching,  with  the  time  he  recommenced  his  work  on 
the  Psalms,  1518-19,  which  period  Luther  expressly  mentions 
in  the  Preface  as  the  date  of  the  incident.1  It  is  not  necessary, 
indeed,  when  we  consider  the  above  description  of  the  course 
of  his  development,  not  possible,  to  assign  an  earlier  date  to 
the  incident,  though  some  have  recently  pushed  it  back  to  a 
time  prior  to  his  first  exposition  on  the  Psalms.  Others,  on 
account  of  some  minor  inexactitudes  which  occur  in  the 
principal  account  given  in  1545  (see  below,  p.  399),  hold  it  to 
be  a  fanciful  invention  of  Luther  in  his  old  age  in  which  he 
was  merely  summing  up  the  result  of  a  long  inward  process. 
If  every  circumstance  be  calmly  weighed  the  historian  must 
however,  in  the  main,  support  Luther's  account ;  he  is  not 
free  to  sacrifice  the  valuable  source  of  knowledge,  of  such  vast 
importance  in  arriving  at  an  estimate  of  Luther's  personality, 
presented  by  these  testimonies. 

In  what  follows  Luther's  other  testimonies  to  the  same 
effect  as  that  contained  in  the  Preface,  will  be  duly  brought 
forward  and  their  peculiarities  noted. 

1  "  Ccepi  psalterium  secundo  interpretari.  .  .  .  Eo  anno  (MDX1X) 
iam  redieram  ad  psalterium  denuo  interpretandum" 


THE  TOWER   INCIDENT  393 

The  first  testimony  is  to  be  found  in  Johann  Schlaginhaufen's 
notes  and  speaks  of  the  fears  which  the  thought  of  God's  aveng- 
ing justice  habitually  caused  Luther  and  from  which  the  discovery 
delivered  him.1  This  pupil  of  Luther's  relates,  in  an  abbreviated 
Latin  form,  the  following  communication  which  he  received  from 
Luther  between  June  and  September,  1532,  i.e.  thirteen  years 
before  the  Preface  :  "  The  words  just  and  Justice  were  like  a 
flash  of  lightning  in  my  conscience.  When  I  heard  them  I  was 
filled  with  terror  [and  thought]  :  Is  He  just  ?  Then  He  will 
punish  ;  '  The  just  man  liveth  by  faith,'  '  the  Justice  of  God  is 
made  manifest  without  the  law  '  (cp.  Rom.  iii.  21)  ;  our  life 
therefore  comes  of  faith  ;  God's  Justice  must  be  the  salvation  of 
everyone  who  believes.  Then  my  conscience  at  once  comforted 
itself  :  Surely  it  is  the  Justice  of  God  which  justifies  us  and  saves 
us  ;  and  this  word  (iustitia)  became  more  pleasing  to  me." 
"  This  art,"  Schlaginhaufen  proceeds  in  Luther's  own  German, 
"the  Spiritus  sanctus  infused  into  me  in  this  Cl."  (see  p:  396). 

The  fear  of  the  Divine  Justice  also  appears  in  the  foreground 
in  the  account  of  the  incident  in  Luther's  Table-Talk  in  Septem- 
ber, 1540,  as  preserved  by  Johann  Mathesius.2  "  At  the  outset 
when  I  read  and  sang  in  the  Psalm  [every  evening  at  Compline] 
the  words  :  . '  In  iustitia  tua  libera  me,'  I  was  afraid  and  hated 
the  words  :  '  iustitia  Dei,'  '  indicium  Dei,'  '  opus  Dei.'  For  I 
thought  nothing  less  than  that  '  iustitia  Dei  '  meant  His  strict 
Judgment.  And  if  He  was  to  save  me  according  to  His  strict 
Judgment  I  should  be  lost  for  ever.  But  '  misericordiam  Dei,' 
'  adiutorium  Dei,'  those  words  pleased  me  better."  But  it  was 
only  after  the  light  of  a  true  understanding  of  God's  Justice  had 
risen  upon  me  that  "  I  began  to  relish  the  Psalter." 

The  notes  on  Luther's  Table-Talk  made  by  his  friend  Master 
Caspar  Heydenreich,  dating  from  the  winter  1542-43,  and  edited 
by  Kroker  in  1903  from  the  collection  of  Mathesius,  must  also  be 
considered. 8 

Mathesius  records  them  under  the  descriptive  title  :  "  Evangelii 
occasio  renascentis  per  Doctor  em."  He  plainly  thought,  agreeably 
with  Luther's  own  opinion  and  that  of  his  pupils,  that  the 
enlightenment  he  had  received  on  the  text  "  The  just  man  liveth 
by  faith  "  was  the  most  important,  or  at  least  one  of  the  most 
important  causes  of  "  the  new  birth  of  the  Gospel  through  the 
Doctor  " — Luther.  And,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Luther's  con- 
viction, which  was  shared  by  his  pupils,  that  this  saving  inter- 
pretation had  been  infused  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  sufficiently 
explains  why  so  much  stress  should  be  laid  on  this  incident,  and 
also  why  the  recipient  of  the  said  illumination  so  frequently 
recurs  to  it. 

Under  the  above  title  we  find  Heydenreich's  lengthy  account, 
taken  from  Luther's  own  lips,  which  agrees  entirely  with  the 
statements  of  the  Preface  and,  in  particular,  dwells  on  Luther's 

1  Schlaginhaufen,  "  Tischreden "  (1531-1532),  p.  108. 

2  Mathesius,  "  Tischreden,"  p.  211  f.       3  Kroker's  edition,  p.  309. 


394  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

ecstasy  of  joy  at  the  discovery  ("  Cum  hoc  invenissem,  ita 
delectabar,  in  tanta  Icstitia,  ut  nihil  supra  "). 

In  several  of  the  accounts  the  Psalms  are  represented  as  the 
primary  cause  of  the  struggles  that  went  on  in  Luther's  soul,  and 
the  correct  comprehension  of  them  as  one  of  the  first  fruits  of 
his  new  discernment.  Then  "  I  first  relished  the  Psalter," 
Luther  says  in  Mathesius's  account,  and  in  Heydenreich's  notes 
he  declares  :  "  Whereas  I  formerly  hated  the  Psalms  and  the 
Scripture  where  mention  was  made  of  the  Justice  of  God,  the 
way  was  now  clear  to  me  when  I  read  in  the  Psalms  :  '  Deliver  me 
in  Thy  Justice  '  and  '  Deliver  me  in  Thy  mercy,'  "  for  God's 
mercy,  by  which  He  justifies  us  with  His  grace,  had,  from  that 
time  onward,  come  to  mean  the  same  to  him  as  "the  righteous- 
ness of  God." 

In  Anton  Lauterbach's  Diary  of  1538  two  passages  from 
the  Psalms  are  likewise  quoted  as  the  cause  of  Luther's  trouble  of 
conscience,1  and  in  the  Hallo  MS.  of  the  "  Colloquia  "  which 
Bindseil  edited,  and  which  is  based  on  Lauterbach's  collection,  a 
similar  uneasiness  is  said  to  have  been  induced  by  the  Psalms  in 
priests  generally  :  "  When,  in  Popery,  we  read  the  verses  [in 
question]  we  immediately  thought  of  the  avenging  Justice  .  .  . 
but  when  I  took  into  consideration  what  follows  ...  I  became 
joyful,"  the  right  interpretation  of  the  passage  concerning  the 
just  man  who  lives  by  faith  "  supplied  a  remedy  for  all  who  were 
afflicted  "  ("  afflictis  remedium  contiyit  ").2 

Another  passage  in  the  Psalms  which  caused  him  trouble  is 
quoted  by  Luther  when  referring  to  the  event  in  his  Commentary 
on  Psalm  1.  (li.),  which  he  wrote  in  1532  :  "  Exsultdbit  lingua  mea 
iustitiam  tuam  "  (verse  16)  ;  as  the  biblical  view  of  Justice  had 
been  obscured  in  his  mind  and  in  that  of  all,  he  had  been  unable 
to  understand  how  it  was  possible  to  praise  the  avenging  Justice 
in  the  Psalms.3 

Thus,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Psalms  were  the  actual  occa- 
sion of  his  discovery  and  his  statement  in  the  Preface  of  1545 
with  regard  to  the  time  it  occurred  is  thereby  confirmed.4 

1  Lauterbach,  "  Tagebuch,"  p.  130. 

2  "  Colloquia,"  ed.  Bindseil,  2,  p.  275.     Cp.  1,  p.  52. 

3  "  Opp.  Lat.  ex'eg.,"  19,  p.  130. 

4  Kawerau  also  lays  great  stress  on  the  connection  between  Luther's 
development   and  his   work   on   the  Psalms.      "  Theol.    Studien  und 
Kritiken,"  77,  1904,  p.  617.    He  even  thinks  the  Psalms  rather  than  the 
idea  of  the  lustitia  Dei  formed  the  starting-point.     J.  Ficker  says  in 
the  Preface  to  his  edition  of  the  Commentary  on  Romans,  p.  Ixxii,  with 
regard  to  the  testimony  Luther  gives  concerning  himself  in  his  Prsefatio  : 
"  He  speaks  of  the  second  course  [on  the  Psalms],  but  is,  without  doubt, 
thinking  of  the  first."    And  O.  Scheel  (see  above,  p.  388,  n.  3),  p.  112  f., 
etc.,  prefers  to  fix  the  first  course  on  the  Psalms  as  the  time  of  Luther's 
experience,   and  rests  his  assumption  on  the  fact  that  Luther  had 
"  reforming  ideas  "   present  in  his  mind  even  before  he  wrote  the 
Commentary   on   Romans.      I,   nevertheless,    think  I  may  appeal  in 
opposition  to  this  view  to  my  preceding  statements  which  touch  on 
all  the  points  raised,  more  particularly  on  the  change  which  during  the 


THE   TOWER   INCIDENT  395 

Luther's  pupil,  Conrad  Cordatus,  in  recording  the  matter  in 
his  diary  is  quite  right  in  emphasising,  in  Luther's  own  words, 
that  the  knowledge  gained  by  the  incident  was  :  "  Ergo  ex  fide 
est  iustitia  et  ex  iustitia  vita  "  -,1  this  is  also  done  in  the  German 
Table-Talk,  where  we  find  a  rather  more  detailed  description  of 
the  inference  drawn  by  Luther  :  "  Then  I  became  of  another 
mind  and  from  that  moment  thought  :  We  are  to  live  as  justified 
by  faith,  and  the  Justice  of  God,  which  is  His  attribute,  shall  save 
all  who  believe  ;  these  verses  will  no  longer  affright  the  poor 
sinners  and  those  who  are  troubled  in  conscience,  but  on  the 
contrary  comfort  them."2 

In  the  reference  made  to  the  event  in  the  Commentary  on  Genesis 
(1540),  the  fact  that  the  just  man  lives  by  faith  is  also  placed  in 
the  foreground,  and  in  this  case  we  may  safely  rely  on  the 
Commentary  though  it  was  not  printed  till  after  Luther's  death. 3 
Here  we  read  that  it  was  the  knowledge  he  had  acquired  "under 
the  enlightenment  of  the  Holy  Ghost  "  that  "  our  life  comes  from 
faith  "  that  had  "  opened  out  the  whole  of  Scripture  to  him, 
and  heaven  itself."  This,  according  to  the  passage  in  question, 
was  the  result  of  the  "  anxious  work,"  which  at  the  outset  he  had 
devoted  to  the  comprehension  of  Romans  i.  17.  By  the  use  of 
such  an  expression  as  "  at  the  outset,"  "  primum,"  the  opening 
word  of  the  whole  passage  which  speaks  of  his  development,  he 
would  appear  to  imply  that  it  was  then  that  the  foundation  was 
laid  of  the  great  evangelical  truth  concerning  faith.  This  agrees 
with  the  title  Mathesius  bestows  on  his  notes  :  "  Occasion  of  the 
re-birth  of  the  gospel  by  means  of  the  Doctor."  In  the  passage 
in  question  in  the  Commentary  on  Genesis  the  consoling  faith 
which  he  had  been  commissioned  to  teach  is  contrasted  with  the 
"  unbelief  "  prevalent  in  Popery,  which  has  lost  all  experience  of 
this  security.  "  They  did  not  know  that  unbelief  was  a  sin  .  .  . 
and  yet  conscience  cannot  find  any  real  comfort  in  works.  Let 
us  therefore  enjoy  the  blessing  of  God  which  is  now  imparted 
to  us." 

Luther's  utterances  so  far  have  referred  more  to  the 
inward  occasion,  to  the  time  and  the  subject-matter  of  the 
experience  from  which  the  dogma  of  absolute  assurance  of 

period  from  1515  to  1516  occurred  in  Luther,  who  in  his  first  Com- 
mentary on  the  Psalms  had  been  much  more  Catholic-minded.  In 
fixing  chronologically  the  date  of  the  experience  described  in  the 
Latin  Prsefatio  I  have  the  further  advantage  of  being  supported  by 
Luther's  clear  and  definite  statement.  As  he  esteemed  his  second 
course  on  the  Psalms  so  highly  (see  above,  p.  386)  and  consigned  the 
first  to  oblivion,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  he  mistook  the  one  for 
the  other.  On  the  other  hand,  a  mistake  as  to  the  sequence  of  those 
ideas  which  had  made  an  impression  on  him  in  his  youth  might  easily 
be  explained  by  advancing  years,  like  his  mistakes  concerning  the  time 
when  he  first  became  acquainted  with  certain  authors  (for  instance, 
in  this  case,  with  Augustine).  J  P.  423. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  58,  p.  370.    Cp.  pp.  336,  404 

3  See  above,  p.  388,  n.  3. 


396  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

salvation  took  its  rise.  The  statements  which  follow,  on  the 
other  hand,  refer  more  to  the  place  where  the  incident 
occurred,  but  they  at  the  same  time  emphasise  more  par- 
ticularly an  element  which  was  incidentally  connected  with 
it,  namely,  the  inspiration  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

In  Lauterbach's  "  Colloquia  "  (ed.  by  Bindseil)  the  account  com- 
mences with  the  words  :  "  By  the  grace  of  God  while  thinking 
on  one  occasion  on  this  tower  [he  seems  to  be  pointing  with  his 
finger  to  the  very  spot]  and  hypocaustum,  over  those  words  : 
Justus  ex  fide  vivit  .  .  .  the  Holy  Ghost  revealed  the  Scripture  to 
me  in  this  tower."1  In  Cordatus's  diary  both  circumstances  are 
mentioned  :  "  On  one  occasion  on  this  tower  (where  the  privy  of 
the  monks  was  situated)  when  I  was  speculating  on  the  words,  etc., 
the  Holy  Ghost  imparted  to  me  this  knowledge  on  this  tower," 
i.e.  to  understand  that  "  Justice  comes  of  faith  and  life  proceeds 
from  Justice."2  The  editor,  H.  Wrampelmeyer,  points  out  the 
fact  that  the  mention  of  the  "  privy  "  is  omitted  in  the  later 
Table-Talk.  In  the  German  Table-Talk  the  inspiration  is 
mentioned  instead  :  "  This  knowledge  was  given  to  me  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  alone."3  Rebenstock,  in  his  valuable  Latin  Table- 
Talk,  gives  both  together  :  "  in  hoc  turri  vel  hypocausto,"  and 
later:  "  Hcec  verba  per  Spiritum  sanctum  mihi  revelata  sunt,"* 
The  Lutheran  pastor  Caspar  Khummer,  who,  in  1554,  made  a 
collection  of  Table-Talk,  relates  both  circumstances  (in  Lauter- 
bach's edition)  :  "  Cum  semel  in  hoc  turri  speculabar,"  and 
further  on  :  "  With  this  knowledge  the  Holy  Ghost  inspired  me 
in  this  cloaca  on  the  tower."8 

The  mention  of  the  cloaca  explains  the  entry  of  Johann 
Schlaginhaufen  in  his  notes  of  Luther's  own  words  in  1532  : 
"  This  art  the  Spiritus  sanctus  infused  into  me  in  this  Cl." 6  Cloaca 
is  abbreviated  into  Cl.,  -probably  because  Schlaginhaufen's 
copyist,  was  reluctant  to  write  it  out  in  full  alongside  of  the 
account  of  the  inspiration  which  Luther  had  received  from  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  the  editor  suggests  we  should  read  "  Capitel  "  ;  but 
the  chapter-house  is  not  to  be  thought  of.  Strange  indeed  are  the 
interpretations  which  have  been  given,  even  in  recent  times,  by 
the  unlearned  to  many  of  the  expressions  in  our  texts.  The 
"  locus  secretus  "  was  supposed  to  be  "  a  special  place  allotted  to 
the  monks  in  the  tower,"  whereas  it  is  clear  that  the  "  secret 
chamber  "  was  simply  the  closet  or  privy,  a  word  which  occurs 
often  enough  in  Luther's  later  abuse  of  the  Papists.  In  olden 
times  it  was  very  usual  to  establish  this  adjunct  on  the  city  wall 
and  its  towers,  the  sewage  having  egress  outside  the  town 
boundaries.  The  buildings  on  the  city  wall,  of  which  we  hear  in 

1  Volume  i.,  p.  52.    Texts  in  detail,  vol.  vi.,  xlii,  6. 

2  P.  423.         3  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  58,  p.  370. 

4  In  the  notes  to  the  "  Colloquia,"  ed.  Bindseil,  1,  p.  52. 
6  J.  K.  Seidemann  in  his  edition  of  Lauterbach,  p.  81. 
6  See  above,  p.  393. 


THE   TOWER   INCIDENT  397 

connection  with  Luther's  monastery,  were  simply  this  and 
nothing  more.1  It  has  been  said  that  by  the  word  "  tower  "  was 
meant  a  spiritual  prison,  namely,  Popery,  in  which  Luther 
languished  until  his  enlightenment.  In  the  hypocaustum  was 
seen  the  spiritual  sweat-bath  in  which  the  Monk  was  immersed 
till  the  time  of  his  liberation  by  the  new  doctrine.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  the  allusion  is  to  a  heating  apparatus,  or  warmed  space, 
either  below  or  in  front  of  the  privy,  some  such  arrangement  being 
common  in  monasteries.  In  his  cell  Luther  had  no  stove. 

We  know  from  Luther's  letters  that  there  was  a  question  in 
1519  of  allotting  some  other  place  outside  the  walls  to  the 
previously  existing  privy,  or  of  rebuilding  it.  In  the  name  of  the 
community,  Luther,  in  the  middle  of  May,  1519,  requested  the 
Elector  for  permission  to  erect  a  "  necessary  building  outside  the 
walls  on  the  moat,"  because  the  "gentlemen  of  the  Wittenberg 
Council  "  delayed  giving  their  sanction.2  The  result  of  the 
request  is  unknown  ;  as,  however,  Cordatus,  in  the  passage 
referring  to  the  tower,  makes  use  of  the  words  :  "in  which  the 
monks'  privy  was,"  it  would  seem  at  the  time  he  wrote  to  have 
been  no  longer  in  the  tower.  The  tower,  however,  remained, 
otherwise  Luther  would  not  have  said,  as  he  did,  that  the  event 
took  place  on  (or  in)  this  tower.  An  historian  of  Luther's  Augus- 
tinian  priory  stated  in  1883,  that,  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
monastery,  where  the  localities  in  question  were  probably 
situated,  broken  drain-pipes  were  to  be  seen  up  to  the  middle  of 
last  (the  eighteenth)  century.3 

We  must,  therefore,  represent  the  scene  of  the  discovery  as 
the  secret  chamber,  which  Luther  expressly  mentions,  situated 
in  a  tower  on  the  walls,  probably  on  the  eastern  flank  of  the 
monastery.  Constructed  against  the  outer  side  of  the  tower,  it 
probably  projected  over  the  moat,  and,  below,  or  in  front  of  it, 
was  the  so-called  hypocaustum. 

As  regards  the  revelation  mentioned  in  the  above  passages, 
it  is  certain  that  Luther  always  traced  back  the  knowledge  so 
acquired  to  a  special  revelation,  though  not  indeed  to  any- 
thing like  a  vision.  Those  verses  on  faith  composed  his 
"  evangel,"  and  he  always  declared  with  regard  to  this 
"  evangel  "  that  his  discovery,  made  at  the  cost  of  so  much 
labour,  had  been  accompanied  by  a  "  revelation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."4 

He  speaks,  for  instance,  of  the  time  when  he  began  to  advocate 
his  favourite  doctrine  as  being  the  time  of  the  "  revelation  of  the 
evangel."5  In  answer  to  the  fanatics  who  disputed  his  right  to 

1  Lisch,  in  Enders,  "  Brief wechsel  Luthers,"  2,  p.  35,  n.  2. 

2  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  9.     "  Briefwechsel,"  2,  p.  35. 

3  H.  Stein,  "  Gesch.  des  Lutherhauses,"  1883,  p.  19. 
*  See  volume  iii.,  xvi.,  1,  and  volume  vi.,  xxxvi.,  4. 
5  "  Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  61,  p.  338,  "  Tischreden." 


398  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

the  first  place  in  the  new  teaching,  he  defends  himself  by  saying 
that  it  was  he  who  "  not  without  the  revelation  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  again  brought  forward  the  gospel."  The  words  contained  in 
his  letter  to  the  Elector  on  his  return  from  the  Wartburg  express 
a  consciousness  of  a  higher  illumination,  where  he  declares  that 
he  had  received  the  "  evangel,  not  from  men,  but  solely  from 
heaven  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."1 

"  Such  self-reliance  almost  fills  us  with  anxiety,"  says  Adolf 
Harnack,  of  the  latter  and  other  writings.  ".  .  .  We  seek  in  vain  in 
the  whole  history  of  the  Church  for  examples  of  men  who  could  write 
such  letters  as  that  to  the  Elector,  and  the  writings  which  Luther 
composed  on  the  Wartburg.  I  can  quite  understand  how  Catholic 
critics  see  in  these  letters  a  '  delirious  pride.'  There  is  no  choice 
except  to  judge  Luther  thus  or  to  recognise  that  his  place  was  an 
entirely  peculiar  one  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  religion."2 
Harnack  goes  on  to  quote  another  extremely  self-confident 
passage  from  Luther  :  "It  pleased  God  well  to  reveal  His  Son 
through  me,"  and  then  expresses  his  own  opinion  on  the  subject : 
"  Luther's  merit  consisted  in  the  circumstance  that  he  was  able 
to  express  what  he  had  experienced,  namely,  the  equation  of  the 
assurance  of  salvation,  and  faith  "  ;  3  his  self-reliance,  Harnack 
adds,  was  the  "  true  expression  of  a  religious  freedom  such  as 
Clement  of  Alexandria  had  painted  as  the  disposition  of  a  true 
Christian,  and  such  as  the  mystics  of  all  ages  had  in  their  way 
sought  to  attain  to."* 

Luther's  claim  to  special  illumination  must,  as  hinted  be- 
fore, be  restricted  to  the  domain  of  the  aforesaid  doctrine  of 
assurance  of  salvation  ;  the  whole  of  his  doctrine  did  not  come 
to  him  from  God,  or  at  least  only  by  way  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  Spirit,  which,  according  to  his  own  statements  to  vbe  after- 
wards considered,  is  common  to  all  well-disposed  Christians  who 
make  use  of  Holy  Scripture.  Dollinger,  also,  says  :  This  doctrine 
was  the  "  only  one  which  he  really  believed  he  had  received  by  a 
special  revelation  of  the  Holy  Ghost."5 

Here  again  we  perceive  the  fundamental  importance  attach- 
ing to  the  assurance  of  salvation  as  the  corner-stone  of  his 
development.  Unconsciously  he  had  been  driven  forward 
to  this  extremity.  Protestants  quite  rightly  have  often 
pointed  out  that  the  decisive  question  for  him  was  :  "  How 
can  I,  a  mere  single  individual,  be  assured  of  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  and  thereby  of  the  mercy  of  God  ?  "  "  He  ventured," 

1  On  March  5,  1522,  "Werke,"  Erl.  ed.,  53,  p.  106  ("  Brief wechsel," 
3,  p.  296). 

2  "  Dogniengesch.,"  3,  p.  812. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  846.    Harnack  (p.  812)  urges  that  Luther's  self-confidence 
was  combined  with  entire  humility  with  respect  to  God. 

*  Ibid. 

6  "  Die  Reformation,"  3,  p.  186.  Dollinger  is  there  speaking  of  the 
"  doctrine  of  Imputation,"  by  which  he  means  the  doctrine  of  faith 
alone  which  produces  the  assurance  of  salvation. 


THE   TOWER   INCIDENT  399 

so  it  has  been  said,  "  to  throw  overboard  all  doubts  as  to  the 
doctrine  of  assurance  of  salvation  and  to  declare  frankly 
and  freely  :  it  is  impossible  to  trust  God  without  being 
fully  assured  of  redemption  and  salvation."  "  One  thing 
only  was  still  wanting  (in  his  Commentary  on  Romans), 
namely,  the  clear  perception  of  the  fact,  that  the  believer 
not  only  may  be  certain  of  his  redemption,  but  that  he 
must  be  so."  The  mystics  helped  him  finally  to  arrive  at  the 
"  joyous  sense  of  trust  in  God  "  after  he  had  been  through 
"  the  hell  of  a  troubled  conscience  "  ;  thus  he  was  set  "  free 
from  the  last  scruples  and  doubts,  and  reached  the  con- 
sciousness that  he  might,  nay,  must,  rest  assured  of  his 
God."1 

The  fact  cannot  be  concealed,  that  in  the  above  passages 
concerning  the  discovery  on  the  tower,  which  for  the  most 
part  date  from  a  later  period  of  Luther's  life,  there  is  some 
obscurity  and  confusion  as  to  the  subject.  He  says  first : 
the  Justice  of  God,  by  which  God  (Christ)  is  Just,  is  taught 
in  the  New  Law  and  is  also  indicated  in  the  Psalms,  and  this 
Justice  of  God  is  reckoned  to  us  as  our  Justice.  Secondly, 
we  lay  hold  upon  it  only  by  faith,  and  thus  our  life  comes 
from  faith  (fiducial  faith  with  assurance  of  salvation),  of 
which  fact  we  must  be  joyfully  confident.  Thirdly  :  The 
difficulty  caused  by  the  idea  of  God's  avenging  Justice, 
which  weighs  down  the  soul,  must  therefore  be  fought 
against  with  determination.  Of  the  first  of  these  three  ele- 
ments Luther  had  made  personal  experience  long  before  this 
time  ;  its  earliest  expression  is  at  the  commencement  of  the 
Commentary  on  Romans,  also  in  the  well-known  letter  to 
Spenlein  of  April  7,  1516.  He  had  therefore  no  right  to 
speak  of  it  as  forming  the  subject  of  his  newly  acquired 
knowledge.  The  second  element  on  the  other  hand  was 
really  new,  and  gave  him  the  answer  to  the  anxious  question  : 
How  is  the  imputed  Justice  of  God  to  become  mine  ?  Not 
by  self-annihilation,  not  by  humilitas,  not  by  yearning 
prayer  and  other  works  which  hitherto  he  had  proposed  as 
the  means,  but  by  faith  only  which  had  assured  him  of 
"  regeneration,"  of  heavenly  revelations,  etc.  Concerning 
the  third  element  no  more  need  be  said  here,  however 
greedily  he  may  have  seized  the  semblance  of  comfort  which 

1  So  H.  Bohmer,  "Luther  im  Lichte  der  neueren  Forschung"2, 
1910,  pp.  45,  57,  58. 


400  LUTHER   THE    MONK 

the  discovery  afforded  him,  passing  from  the  storms  of  his 
crisis  into  what  he  took  to  be  a  safe  haven  of  peace. 

The  illusory  talisman  of  absolute  assurance  of  salvation 
was  the  result  of  the  second  stage  of  his  development. 

3.  Legends.     Storm  Signals 

On  looking  back  in  later  years  upon  the  course  of  his 
spiritual  progress  in  the  monastery,  Luther  was  unable  to 
distinguish  clearly  between  the  various  stages  of  his  develop- 
ment. The  incident  in  the  tower,  which  had  left  the  strongest 
impression  on  his  memory,  drew  the  first  stage  more  and 
more  into  the  foreground  in  his  imagination,  so  that  in  his 
accounts  he  assigns  to  it  an  undue  prominence  to  the 
disadvantage  of  the  two  others.  Hence  the  want  of  clearness 
noticeable  in  his  statements  with  regard  to  the  same. 

We  find  not  merely  obscurity,  but  actual  error,  particularly 
in  his  account  of  the  traditional  interpretation  and  that 
which  he  had  himself  begun  to  advocate  of  the  lustitia  Dei 
(Rom.  i.  17).  Luther  is,  in  this  matter,  the  originator  of  the 
great  legend  still  current  even  in  our  own  day,  which 
represents  him  as  a  Columbus  discovering  therein  the  central 
truth  set  forth  by  Paul ;  no  one  had  been  able  to  find  the 
key  to  the  passage  before  his  glance  penetrated  to  the 
truth.  All  the  learned  men  of  earlier  times  had  said  that 
iustitia  there  meant  the  avenging  Justice  of  an  angry  God. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  Luther's  lectures  on  Genesis  in  1540-41,  * 
it  is  asserted  that  all  the  doctors  of  the  Church,  with 
the  exception  of  Augustine,  had  misunderstood  the  verses 
Romans  i.  16  f.  ;  Luther's  Preface  to  his  Latin  works  to 
some  extent  presupposes  the  same,  for  he  says  that  he  had, 
"  according  to  the  custom  and  use  of  all  doctors"  ("  usu  et  con- 
suetudine  omnium  doctorum  doctus  "),  understood  the  passage 
as  meaning  that  justice  "  by  which  God  is  Just  and  punishes 
sin,"  and  only  Augustine,  with  whom  he  had  made  common 
cause,  had  found  the  right  interpretation  ("  iustitiam  Dei 
interprelatur,  qua  nos  Deus  induit "),  although  even  the 
latter  did  not  teach  imputation  clearly  (see  above,  p.  392).2 

1  See  above,  p.  388,  n.  3.    We  can  hardly  assume  that  such  a  state- 
ment was  an  error  of  the  Notes  ;  it  is  more  probable  that  Luther  made 
a  mistake  in  his  verbal  delivery. 

2  In  other  statements,  such  as  that  related  by  Heydenreich  (above, 
p.  393),  he  assumes  that  no  doctor  was  able  to  supply  him  with  the  right 
explanation  :   "  No  one  came  to  open  the  door,"  etc. 


THE   LUTHER  LEGEND  401 

"  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the  exact  opposite  is  the 
case  :  all  the  mediaeval  doctors  whom  he  studied  as  a  monk, 
Peter  Lombard,  Lyra  and  Paul  of  Burgos,  gave,  as  can  be 
proved,  the  same  interpretation  as  Augustine.  Thus  Luther 
was  completely  at  sea  as  to  the  handling  of  this,  to  him 
most  important,  passage."1  Luther  in  his  Preface  says 
that  contrary  to  all  expectation  ("  praeter  spem  ")  he  had, 
after  his  own  discovery,  found  in  St.  Augustine's  "  De 
spiritu  et  litter  a  "  an  interpretation  which  agreed  with  his 
own,  and  that  this  caused  him  fresh  joy,  although  Augustine 
expresses  himself  imperfectly  with  regard  to  the  same. 
Denifle,  on  the  other  hand,  proves  by  the  testimony  of  more 
than  sixty  interpreters  of  antiquity,  that  all  are  unani- 
mous in  taking  the  iustitia  Dei  in  St.  Paul  in  the  same  sense 
as  St.  Augustine,  viz.  as  the  Justice  by  which  God  renders 
men  just.2  The  demonstration  is  conducted  with  "com- 
mendable accuracy  and  fulness."3 

Luther  himself,  strange  to  say,  at  an  earlier  date  and 
previous  to  the  Tower  incident,  had  repeatedly  employed 
the  correct  interpretation.  We  can  only  suppose  that  it 
then  made  no  impression  on  him,  at  any  rate,  no  such 
impression  as  the  incident  on  the  Tower.  He  makes  use  of  it 
with  special  reference  to  its  older  representatives,  in  the 
marginal  notes  to  the  Sentences  of  Peter  Lombard,  1 509-10, 4 
then  in  the  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  and  finally  even  in 
the  Commentary  on  Romans,  where  he  twice  quotes  Augus- 
tine and  even  the  "  De  spiritu  et  littera" 

It  is  true  that  on  these  occasions  he  passes  over  the  pas- 
sage in  the  Epistle  without  displaying  any  particular  interest, 
i.e.  without  laying  on  it  the  stress  he  does  at  a  later  date. 
Another  difference  is  also  noticeable.  Luther  has  introduced 
since  1518  an  entirely  new  idea,  which  he  had  not  before,  into 

1  Thus  Bohmer,  ibid.,  p.  35. 

2  Denifle,     "Luther    und    Luthertum,"    I2.    "  Quellenbelege ;    die 
abendlandischen  Schriftausleger  bis  Luther  iiber  iustitia  Dei  (Rom. 
i.  17)  und  iustificatio,"  1905.     Among  the  older  interpreters  Abailard 
alone  may  be  an  exception. 

3  Ficker  in  the  Preface,  p.  Ixxix. 

4  Cp.  Bohmer2,  p.  47  :   "  It  is  a  matter  of  interest  that  he  refers  for 
the  interpretation  to  a  work  much  used  in  that  period,  the  '  Biblia  cum 
glossa  ordinaria,'  printed  at  Basle  by  Froben,  1508.    It  is  plain  that  he 
looked  up  this  gloss  on  the  Epistle."    On  the  strength  of  this  B6hmer 
thought  himself  entitled  to  say  :   "  The  birth-hour  of  the  Reformation 
falls  in  the  winter  1508-9.  .  .  .  Its  birthplace  was  the  Black  Monastery 
at  Wittenberg  "  ;    but  "  it  was  only  quite  slowly  that  Luther  lived 
himself  into  his  new  religious  views." 

I.— 2  D 


402  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

his  interpretation  of  the  iustitia  Dei.  In  it  he  finds  not  only  that 
the  justice  which  comes  from  God  justifies  us,  but  that  it  is 
bestowed  upon  us  solely  and  directly  by  means  of  a  trusting 
faith,  and  that  thus  a  "  life  "  in  grace  is  opened  up  to  man  of 
which  he  must  be  infallibly  certain  in  his  innermost  conscious- 
ness. 

In  his  accounts,  says  Loofs,  "  we  have  documentary  proof  of 
impaired  memory."  "It  is  plain  that  Luther's  memory,  in  the 
course  of  years,  and  owing  to  his  '  odium  papce,'  had,  as  we  can 
well  understand,  become  inaccurate  with  regard  to  pre-Reforma- 
tion  conditions."1  The  "  odium  papce  "  would  certainly  seem  to 
have  been  concerned  in  his  placing  in  the  forefront  his  supposed 
re-discovery  of  an  exegesis  which  Popery  had  forgotten. 

Merely  in  order  to  throw  light  on  the  sequel  of  the  great 
legend  in  our  own  times,  we  may  here  remark  that  it  is  difficult 
to  understand  the  displeasure  expressed  by  a  modern  Church 
historian  and  admirer  of  Luther,  when  some  Protestants  dared 
to  agree  with  Denifle's  lengthy  demonstration  of  the  real 
exegetical  history  of  Romans  i.  17.  An  impartial  theologian, 
amongst  others,  expressed  himself  as  follows  in  a  periodical : 
"  Denifle  has  proved  beyond  a  doubt  that  Luther  was  wrong 
when  he  asserted  that  the  earlier  doctors  had  almost  without 
exception  taken  the  iustitia  Dei,  Rom.  i.  17,  in  the  sense  of  the 
Divine  anger."2  These  words  roused  the  admirer  we  have  in 
mind  to  reply  immediately  as  follows  in  the  "  Theologisches 
Literaturblatt  "  of  Leipzig  :  "  Does  then  the  writer  not  per- 
ceive what  the  result  must  be  for  Luther's  character  ?  "  Of 
two  things,  one,  he  says,  either  Luther  lied,  or  he  acted  most 
unscrupulously  and  never  consulted  the  earlier  doctors.3 

The  new  discovery  not  only  filled.  Luther  with  blind 
courage  and  defiant  presumption  in  the  defence  of  his 
previous  teaching,  but  also  lent  a  giant  strength  to  his  action 
as  a  reformer  of  ecclesiastical  conditions  against  Rome's 
abuses.  He  now  begins  to  act  as  a  spokesman  of  the  nation 
and  to  constitute  himself  the  leader  of  the  already  existing 
anti-Roman  movement  in  Germany. 

He  now  persuades  himself  more  strongly  than  ever  that  he 
is  in  possession  of  a  truth  which  is  to  be  suppressed  by  Italian 
trickery  and  imperiousness,  if  not  by  "  poison  and  the  dagger," 
as  was  being  planned  in  Italy.  Rome  had  ravaged  Scripture  and 
the  Church,  her  name  should  be  Babylon  :  this  (Apocalyptic) 
Beast,  this  Antichrist,  must  be  exposed  before  the  world,  other- 

1  Loofs,  "  Dogmengesch."4,    p.    688  f.      Loofs  remarks  concerning 
the  statements  on  Augustine  :    "  Luther  was  also  mistaken  with  regard 
to  this  [the  time  and  the  manner  of  his  experience]."     My  view  of  the 
state  of  the  case  differs,  however,  from  that  of  Loofs,  Braun,  Behmer, 
Scheel,  etc.  • 

2  "  Die  Reformation,"  Lit.  Beilage,  September,  1905. 

3  "  Theologisches  Literaturblatt,"  26,  1905,  col.  507. 


THE   LUTHER  LEGEND  403 

wise  he  might  as  well  surrender  his  theology  and  allow  it  to 
perish  ;  "  I  do  not  care  if  even  my  friends  say  I  have  lost  my 
reason  ;  it  must  be  so  ;  I  have  awaited  this  hour  when  they 
should  be  offended  in  me,  as  the  disciples  and  friends  of  Christ 
were  in  Christ  (Matt.  xxvi.  31  ;  Mark  xiv.  27)  ;  truth  must  stand 
by  its  divine  strength,  not  by  mine  or  yours  or  that  of  any  man."1 

"It  is  only  we  Germans  on  whom  the  Empire  descended,  who 
have  strengthened  the  power  of  the  Popes  so  far  as  we  could. 
For  our  punishment  we  have  had  to  endure  them  as  masters  in 
cursing  and  abuse,  and  now  as  robbers  also  by  means  of  pallium- 
fees  and  taxes  on  the  bishoprics."2 

In  the  Preface  to  the  Commentary  on  Galatians  he  sent  forth  a 
call  to  the  Germans  and  their  Princes,  which  anticipates  his 
later  pamphlet  "  To  the  Nobility  of  the  German  Nation,"  in  the 
same  way  as  the  ideas  contained  in  his  work  on  the  Twofold 
Justice  serve  as  a  prelude  to  the  booklet  "  On  the  Freedom  of  a 
Christian  Man."  "  Those  godless  windbags,  Prierias,  Cajetan  and 
their  fellows,  abuse  us  as  German  clowns,  simpletons,  beasts, 
barbarians,  and  mock  at  the  incredible  patience  with  which  we 
allow  ourselves  to  be  deceived  and  robbed.  All  praise  therefore 
to  the  German  Princes  for  recently  [1518],  at  Augsburg,  refusing 
the  tenths,  twentieths  and  fiftieths  to  the  Roman  Curia,  not- 
withstanding that  they  knew  the  cursed  Roman  Council  [5th  of 
the  Lateran]  had  sanctioned  these  taxes.  They  recognised  that 
the  Pope  and  the  Council  had  erred  .  .  .  that  the  legates  of  the 
Curia  are  only  after  gold  and  more  gold.  The  example  of  these 
lay  theologians  is  especially  worthy  of  imitation.  ...  It  is  a 
proof  of  greater  piety  when  the  Princes  and  other  folk  of  any 
degree  oppose  the  Curia  than  if  they  were  to  take  up  arms  against 
the  Turk."3 

As  we  shall  see,  it  was  not  Ulrich  von  Hutten  who  first 
roused  Luther  to  such  language  against  Rome,  and  to  the 
stirring  up  of  a  false  patriotism.  Hutten's  letters  to  him, 
and  those  of  the  other  Humanists,  are  of  later  date,  as  also 
the  congratulations  and  exhortations  of  the  Humanist 
Crotus  Rubeanus.  It  is  a  legend  to  attribute  the  raising 
of  the  standard  of  the  Reformation  principally  to  the 
Humanists  and  revolutionary  knights.  The  fact  that  its 
origin  may  be  traced  back  to  1521  does  not  make  it  one  whit 
more  credible  historically.  The  air,  in  any  case,  was  full  of 
the  anti-Roman  spirit  of  revolt  breathed  by  the  Humanists 
and  knights.  The  Wittenberg  Monk  had  become  acquainted 
with  this  spirit  and  found  it  sympathetic.  How  well  it 
suited  his  purpose  will  be  shown  in  the  next  chapter. 

1  To  Spalatin,  February  24,  1519,  "  Brief  wechsel,"  2,  p.  2  : 
"  Italicce  subtilitates." 

*  Ibid.,  p.  6.  s  Cp.  Bohmer2,  p.  63 


404  LUTHER    THE    MONK 

The  subversive  doctrines  which  he  had  now  at  length  fully 
developed  in  the  quiet  of  his  monastery  held  the  first  place 
among  the  factors  which  drove  him  onwards  ;  in  so  far  as 
these  doctrines  were  in  very  truth  his  own  production,  born 
of  his  own  heart  and  brain  amid  incredible  anxieties  and 
struggles,  we  may,  nay  must,  say  that  it  was  a  new  and 
independent  task  which  he  undertook,  and  that  his  was  the 
labour  and  his  the  results.  What  Luther  with  his  subversive 
theology  propounded  from  that  time  forward,  what  he, 
with  his  chief  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  and  the 
appropriation  of  salvation,  began  to  set  in  the  place  of  the  old 
teaching,  was  "in  no  way  the  necessary  product  of  the 
various  factors  which  had  assisted  in  his  education,  but 
rather  something  new,  original  and  never  before  known, 
only  to  be  accounted  for  by  Luther's  own  extraordinary 
genius."  l  In  this  sense  the  entire  lack  of  originality  with 
which  he  has  frequently  been  reproached  must  also  be 
relegated  to  the  domain  of  legend.  In  attacking  him  to-day, 
the  tactics  which  commended  themselves  to  the  older 
theologians,  who  knew  little  of  his  history,  or  at  any  rate  of 
the  course  of  his  interior  development,  should  no  longer  be 
resorted  to.  Their  plan  was  to  range  all  his  doctrines  under 
some  one  or  other  of  the  older  heresies- — even  though  only  the 
germ  of  his  errors  was  to  be  found  in  former  ages — and  then 
sapiently  to  declare  he  had  merely  gone  about  collecting  his 
errors  from  the  various  olden  heretics.  It  is  quite  a  different 
matter  that  like  errors  are  so  frequently  met  with  in 
history  even  in  most  unexpected  quarters  ;  it  is  due  to  their 
many-sidedness  and  to  their  windings  and  aberrations. 
The  truth  which  is  vouched  for  by  the  Church  pursues  its 
own  straight,  undeviating  path,  from  the  earliest  disciples 
of  Christ  down  to  our  own  times,  and  in  its  quiet,  immutable 
splendour  is  infinitely  more  original  than  any  error,  how- 
ever new  and  modern  it  may  claim  to  be. 

1  BOhmer2,  p.  60. 


END    OF   VOL.   I. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  It  was  borrowed. 


> 


Form 


J 


3  1158  00395 4723 


